Roy Morgan has released results from a “special” phone poll of 600 respondents conducted yesterday and on Wednesday, which has Labor leading 57.5-42.5 on two-party preferred and 47.5 per cent to 37.5 per cent on the primary vote. The former figure is 1.5 per cent better for the Coalition than last week’s face-to-face poll. Some cute observations from Gary Morgan in the accompanying release:
Australia is lucky that we publish ‘voting intention’ more frequently than all other public opinion polls and Australians must be relieved they have, in addition to the traditional Australian media, an Internet news media which keeps everyone quickly, accurately and independently informed. All pollsters know voting intention is the real guide to how electors will vote. They also know it is hard or nearly impossible to measure how ‘preferences’ will be allocated at the ballot. We (the Morgan Poll) only ask approval ratings occasionally because Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Ronald Reagan and Helen Clark were all behind as the ‘preferred’ leader with low approval ratings a few months before being elected! All poll watchers need to read or re-read what I wrote on Wednesday, namely: ‘Can the Coalition win the Federal Election? The answer is…’
Adam’s statistic is not germane,
For example Beazley winning 18 seats in 1998 occured because Labor was coming off such a low base.
The point is not can Rudd win 16 seats its is there a big enough wave building against Howard that he will get blown away? I think you tend to have big waves which blow away governments and subsequent elections tend to see the wave gradually wound back until the next big wave brings in a new government.
For example Longman, Petrie and Herbert are all seats held by the last Labor government – but the margins according to Adam range from 6.1 to 8.9 %. On the current polling you would have to say today in July the wave may be there – but..
The waves have been few and far between in an Australian context and have tended to be in times of downturn or coming out of one ie 83 and 96. The more relevant period is 69 and 72 good economic conditions where in 69 the ALP demonstrated it was relevant again and regained seats it should always have had and 72 were it just squeaked in.
Unless of course you believe the Noocat theory that statistics like CPI from the ABS are about as reliable as Soviet Gosplan statistics.
I met Amanda Rishworth recently and i was very impressed on how she puts herself across, her professionalism and how good she makes one feel. I might disagree of her political stance and not living in the electorate but she will be so much better than Richardson. Pity the State member of Bright didnt act in the same way showing an immaturity that shocked me.
I might disagree of her political stance should read i might disagree with her political stance
Edward, had the polls been showing then what they are showing now we would be talking about PM Beazley.
Gb It ain’t a lay down misere. Note our biggest acknowledged partisan of Labor Adam hasnt called it.
Michael:
I realize that Howard is within his constitutional rights to set an election date as late as Jan 08. However the last 3 elections have all fallen between Oct 3-Nov 10, and I’m wondering what justifiable reason Howard could give for setting an election beyond this window (that would not be related to his political convenience), as in the public’s mind the pattern has been set.
While parliament must expire after 3 years, Howard can still wield power in the interim. I’ve noticed Rudd implying a couple of times in past interviews (assuming his mental arithmetic is up to scratch here) that the election would be held Sept-Oct, and this line might return after the APEC forum if the polls haven’t changed between then and now.
All part of the “remote from everyday concerns, clinging to the trappings of power, just in it for a victory lap” cocoon that the ALP has been spinning for Howard this year. Not that the Libs are helping their cause by spending more of their time taking fresh-air shots in the direction of Rudd’s scone or making “let them eat cake” pronouncements, than developing good legislation. When they do get around to the last activity it seems that public cycnicism and apathy has already set in.
Edward, of course nobody can say for certain that Rudd will win. Four months is a long time in politics. But you have to admit that Howard has a BIG fight on his hands. He is going to have to work his butt off every day until the election to turn this current polling around.
And there is the very real danger now that a lot of people are no longer listening to Howard. I know a number of people who don’t only ever pay a passing glance at politics and are swinging voters (all voted for Howard in the past) who have already decided that they don’t want him anymore. They are already looking beyond the election to a new government – for them, it’s very simple. The decision has been made, they are getting on with their lives, and couldn’t care what Howard says or does from this point on. I suspect that this situation might not be all that unusual either, which could explain why the polls have been very stable by historical standards.
I have noticed that several ALP frontbenchers have used the line that ‘Howard will do, and say anything, to win the next election’. The consistency with which this line is used suggests it has come about through focus groups, or is at least resonating in focus goups. I think that the great issue for many voters was the lack of a mandate for the IR reforms and the unexpected control of the Senate that Howard got in 2004. Many voters liked the cunningness of Howard when he was playing the big man against helpless refugees but do not want such a cunning character being in for too long and having the Senate, even if its only on a good day.
Ophuph Hucksake – I agree with you entirely, but I do not think that an election as late as the first week or so of December is outside that timeframe. I do not think he will call it dugin APEC – that would turn his relationship with GWB into a clear election issue and he would only be attending as caretaker – and Rudd would have to come along.
I suspect that Howard will hope that a long election will help him in trying to get Rudd to stumble, but I can see he might be afraid that the equalising of the campaign makes Rudd seem more like the alternative.
I suspect that he would justify going to the anniversary of election and then calling it – so mid November.
Adam – the Lib candidate for Lyons is Ben Quin, not Bob. (Bob Quinn is of course the former Qld Liberal leader).
And a photo of Nola Marino can be found
” rel=”nofollow”>here. (warning: large image)
I attend a pretty conservative church every Sunday and speak to many rusted on genuine blue rinse liberal supporters. JWH with his typical divisive politics has targeted the unemployed and the young, mainly as he would see these as largely ALP voters and not able to effect his vote, with his un-mandated IR laws. What he has failed to allow for this time is the fact that these young/unemployed people all have parents and uncles/aunts etc. I am hearing many lifetime liberal voters (self avowed) talking about their younger kindred being mistraeted by Howard and how he has been their too long. I think Howard will be annilhilated.
Many people have said that they expect a JWH inspired terrorist ‘event’. I severely doubt it will happen. Obviously not because this is beneath JWH, as their is nothing beneath the man, but because he knows that the fault for any terrorist event in Australia will be placed fairly and squarely at his feet and would mean political suicide.
What’s worrying my pessimistic mind is that Howard and co haven’t even begun their campaign yet.
Just wait for the “But we’re good for the economy, vote for Labor and you get a recession” remarks.
I met some Libs today who were telling me “If Rudd wins, boat people will come in the droves and he’ll accept them all”. After I tried to debate with them, they basically started with their slurs and bashing Arts degrees and laughing. It astounds me that these people even know how to vote, let alone, are allowed to vote.
Therefore, I believe there is still a lot of ignorance out there in the electorate that will probably believe anything. So a “We’re good for the economy” line from Howard might buy him back a few votes.
If there’s a swing to Rudd, I fear that it’ll just be 1 or 2 off from a required majority and Howard will cling on once more. After looking at past election results, some of the seats that Rudd needs to win still have quite a big gap to fill and I really wonder if he’ll be able to pull it off.
The debate though will be really interesting and I expect Rudd to slam Howard on that one.
Sean, I’m sure there is a lot more to come on an economic scare campaign over Rudd being PM. But Howard has already been running this scare campaign ever since the budget was announced back in May. We’ve heard the so-called “Garrett recession” and the “risk of Rudd” n just about everything, including forecasts of $20 cups of coffee should Rudd get in! And yet, no poll bounce for Howard.
David, many thanks.
Alan:
BxTom:
Where are all these conspiracy nuts coming from ? I thought the outbreak in the last thread was an isolated event.
Noocat Says:
July 14th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Sorry, this link takes you to page 1 of the article:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/polls-apart-at-the-sausage-sizzle/2007/07/13/1183833770404.html
I particularly liked the phrase contained in the story;
“What on earth, some of us wondered, did Dennis have in hand when he wrote that?”
Classic,
Tom
The election campaign has been in full swing now for some months. The only difference being there is not the same level of advertising in the media. That’s why there are few undecideds.
If, the day JWH announces the election, the polls are still at 56-44 or worse, it is very unlikely that the Coalition could claw back sufficient voters to stay in government. He will obviously wait as long as he reasonable can, but I doubt after the end of November.
It’s JWH’s 68th birthday in a few days and that won’t go unremarked.
He will of course retire in a few weeks, four months or about twelve months. The question is: who will take over in those three different scenarios?
If the polls worsen as they may well after this week’s debacle, the only way the Coalition can be saved from disaster is by a swift change of leader – in the Blair/Brown mode.
My betting is that Rudd will win by 6 – 8 seats and there will be another election in about sixteen months as legislation is continually frustrated in the Senate. Before that election it is likely that Rudd will attempt to pass legislation for fixed four year terms for a referendum and such a referendum would pass. This would alleviate voter anger at another election so soon after this one.
My betting is also that Costello is far too pusillanimous to try for a spill in three to four weeks, even though the polls are still bad, and that Malcolm Turnbull will throw his hat in the ring after the election.
We’ll see but you can bet there will be leadership rumbles, not just Wilson Tuckey, if the polls stay this way. That won’t help the Coalition’s chances either.
Some earlier posts have discussed the desirability of fixed terms. The problem with bringing this change about, is that an incumbent has to give up what is seen as a considerable advantage. I don’t know the narrative of the change in NSW or in other States where it has been introduced, but I think it commendable that Bracks used a very rare Labor majority in both houses to push through fixed terms.
At the same time PR for the Legislative Council was also introduced, which involved Labor giving up the prospect of maintaining its Upper House majority. There is of course an interpretation of this as a change which long-term suits Labor, as it makes the task of a future Liberal Government’s winning a majority in both houses equally difficult.
The moral of the story is that unless there is a strong push for a change to electoral laws – such as fixed terms – Governments will tend to fiddle with for partisan advantage. Both major parties have plenty of form in this area, and the minors’ advocacy usually suggests that they might not be any better.
If people are as gullible as some are suggesting then a scare campaign on either side will go down a treat. The only question will be who has the more effective campaign. My belief is that Labor’s campaign will be more potent with IR being just one facet albeit the mainstay. If the loss of wages and condtions and even your job can’t be made into an effective scare campaign I’ll go he.
In NSW, fixed terms were the price Greiner paid for the support of independent after the 1991 election.
I’m not prepared to call the election yet but I am prepared to say that Labor is favourite in my mind. I just cannot envisage the issues, policies or scaremongering that will change greatly the mood of the electorate that is being captured by all opinion polls at the moment.
The one thing that stands out in my mind was the huge swing that took place toward Labor when Rudd took over. That has to mean something. I’ve interpreted it as “thank heavens, someone to vote for. I’m sick of this government.” If I’m right Howard is in heaps.
LABOR TO WIN 2007 ELECTION-
Welcome back Bill Weller to the blogspere –Where have u been. Apart from the obviously one eyed people predicting a Coalition landslide (Steven Kaye et al), I don’t think any of the more respected/experienced pseph people have called the election yet, so I will if for no other reason than to draw out the opinions of those ‘wiser heads’ who I think can/should call it soon .
All these figures stand to be corrected, however in my research it appears that in 1996 Labor lost 29 seats to the Coalition. 17 of those seats lost in 2006 remain Coalition seats. These seats are –
Eden Monaro (NSW) 3.3
Gilmore (NSW) 9.5
Hughes (NSW) 8.8
Lindsay (NSW) 2.9
Macarthur (NSW) 11.1
Macquarie (NSW) 0.5 (Notional ALP)
Page (NSW) 5.5
Parramatta (NSW) 1.1
Dunkley (VIC) 9.4
McEwen (VIC) 6.4
Makin (SA) 0.9
Forde (QLD) 13.0
Herbert (QLD) 6.1
Leichardt (QLD) 10.3
Moreton (QLD) 2.8
Petrie (QLD) 7.9
Gilmore, Hughes, Macarthur, Dunkley, Forde and Leichardt look beyond reach for 2007-.
In 1998, Labor lost Kalgoorlie (WA: 6.3), but won back 14 seats (net) from the Coalition.
In 2001, Labor lost 5 seats to the Coalition but won 3 for a net loss of 2 seats. These seats were-
Dobell (NSW) 4.8
Paterson (NSW) 6.8
Canning (WA) 9.5
Dickson (QLD) 9.1
Ryan (QLD) 10.4
Canning and Ryan are unlikely to be within reach for 2007. The first task for Labor at the 2007 election will be to win back seats (9) lost to the Coalition at the 2004 Federal Election. These seats are-
Greenway (NSW) 11.0
McMillan (VIC) 5.0
Kingston (SA) 0.1
Hasluck (WA) 1.8
Stirling (WA) 2.0
Bonner (QLD) 0.6
Bowman (QLD) 8.9
Bass (TAS) 2.6
Braddon (TAS) 1.1
Greenway, looks beyond Labor’s reach for 2007 and Hasluck/Stirling are not going to be easy to win unless there is a significant swing back to Labor in 2007.
In summary, Labor will be thinking that they have a reasonable chance of regaining 11 seats they lost in 1996, 1 from 1998 (Kalgoorlie), 3 seats lost in 2001 and 6 seats lost in 2004. Yep, that’s a total of 21 seats going back to Labor in the 2007 Election. I am not suggesting all 21 will be won by Labor, only that Labor is in a very good position to win 16 seats back from the Coalition this year.
What if Labor fall short of regaining 16 seats lost to the Coalition since 1996 ? There are 13 marginal/vulnerable seats the Coalition have retained throughout the 1996-2004 period which could help Labor get over the line. The QLD and SA seats are the more vulnerable given the very strong poll signals for Labor in those States. These seats are-
Bennalong (NSW0 4.0
Cowper (NSW) 6.6
Wentworth (NSW) 2.6
Corangamite (VIC) 5.3
Deakin (VIC) 5.0
Gippsland (VIC) 7.7
Latrobe (VIC) 5.8
Boothby (SA) 5.4
Wakefeild (SA) 0.7
Blair (QLD) 5.7
Hinkler (QLD) 8.8
Longman (QLD) 6.6
Solomon (NT) 2.8
With a (rough) 57-43 2PP rating at the present time, unless there is a sudden turn around for the Coalition in the coming months, I think Labor will win the 2007 Federal Election with a few seats to spare, including seats the Coalition have held since at least 1996.
Could be a couple of new seats the Coalition have won since 1996 in there somewhere and Flynn in QLD is a new one Adam rated as National.
The Libs will not lose Bennalong or Wentworth.
STROP, I don’t think Forde, Leichhardt or even Ryan are beyond reach for Labor. In fact I think even seats like Fairfax and McPherson could be in play. History shows that when Queensland swings it swings violently. On the other hand I don’t think Gippsland is winnable. I lack local knowledge about WA but I am sceptical about Kalgoorlie and Canning at this stage. I was very sceptical about Bennelong (note spelling!!) and Wentworth, but I am becoming less so after seeing the Newspoll state breakdown. Personal factors give a sitting member some leeway, but in urban seats a big swing carries all before it. Country seats are different, so I remain doubtful about Cowper, Page, Gilmore and Macarthur.
We are persistently told that although Labor might get a big swing, it can’t win 16 seats. Someone said earlier that this was still the prevailing view in the Canberra gallery. In fact it is easy, without straining credibility, to identify 16 seats that Labor *can* win. (NOTE these are not predictions!)
We have had recent polls showing Labor well ahead in Tasmania and regaining ground in WA. So we can start with Bass, Braddon, Hasluck and Stirling (4).
All polls show a healthy swing to Labor in SA. Add Kingston, Wakefield and Makin (7).
We now see evidence of a biggish swing in NSW. Obvious targets here are Parramatta, Lindsay, Eden-Monaro and Dobell (11). I could add more, but let’s be conservative.
There is obviously a big swing on in Qld. As I noted above, when Qld swings, it really swings. If this happens Labor will expect to win Bonner, Moreton, Blair, Petrie, Herbert and Longman (17). If Laming is charged over Printgate you can add Bowman (18). Leichhardt, Forde and Flynn are vacant and must be at risk.
So I have got well past 16, without Bennelong and Wentworth, without Solomon, and without anything in Vic. Although there are no easy seats in Vic, in the current climate Deakin, La Trobe, Corangamite, McMillan, McEwen and maybe Dunkley must be regarded as winnable.
I make no predictions, but it is absurd to say that even if there is a big swing Labor can’t win 16 seats. Electoral history shows that when there is a swing, urban seats fall like dominoes. One or two may resist the trend, but then others produce bigger-than-expected swings, and the anomalies average out.
Post copy:
The Age/SMH [if it is true should it be investigated, if paid for by the taxpayer? It sounds illegal to me.]:
“THE Howard Government has set up a secret propaganda unit to attack Labor’s plan to build a $4.7 billion broadband network. The unit has been established within the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, with a staff of about 10 on short-term contracts…â€
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/1m-dirty-tricks-to-kill-alps-broadband/2007/07/14/1183833835482.html
This has to make you wonder how many other dirt units they have secreted away in government, if it is legal and who is paying for it all. If the Government has dirt units whose function is simply to counter the policies and electioneering of the ALP then that surely is illegal – it it use public servants or if paid for by the taxpayer.
They investigated Qld MPs over rorting electoral allowances [using the money for the wrong things?] – this would be similar I wonder?
Just Me asked of me the following: “Question is, if your bold prediction is wrong, do you have sufficient humility and decency to turn up here and face psephological reckoning?
Well, do you?”
Of course I do. Do you?
More on the comparative popularity of PMs. While Mr Howard enjoys approval ratings in the high 40s and low 50s, it’s worthwhile noting the ratings of his predecessors: in his last year in office, Keating’s approval rating averaged a terrible 33%, and his disapproval was in the high 60s and low 70s; but what’s even more startling is that Hawke’s approval ratings in his last year languished in the 20s! Absolutely astonishing.
These were PMs the electorate was well and truly sick of, heading up a government that was irreparably on the nose. Not so John Howard.
Thank you Adam for the work you put into that response to my meanderings and I apologise for spelling JWHs seat wrong, again.
I note you are making no predictions, but I pleased to note that my thoughts are somewhere in the ball park of a comfy 16 seat gain for Labor. Thanks again. Okay kids, lets go shopping !!
Stephen Kaye, yes Hawke was polling in the 20s yet Keating won the next election. Howard almost lost prematurely in 1998 because of the GST.
Governments can expect to be in for a good two terms unless there is chaos. They cannot expect to be in for five terms or more. Voters get tired of the same old faces. The proverbial pendulum always swings.
The key problem with this government is that they have had far too few changes – people have seen Howard, Abbott, Costello, Ruddock, Downer for years and years. People are tired of them. They want fresh faces new ideas. That’s why Iemma distanced himself strongly from Carr. Chances are Carr would not have won or at least not done as well as Iemma.
You are now seeing the Brown effect in the UK. The Tories have given up already.
Truly the only thing that can save the Coalition is a change of leader and a major reshuffle, getting rid of Downer, Ruddock and co. That’s the only thing that can stop Rudd in his tracks.
For the first time I noticed Howard was talking about his health yesterday, not just for as long as his party needs him.
A health excuse would also mean he would not stand again at this coming election, giving Labor a chance of picking up that seat.
I really don’t think he could stand both a severe electoral loss and losing his seat at the same time. That would wipe out what he believes is his legacy.
I fully expect he will stand down in the next few weeks. Can he stay as long as APEC? He would want to. That would be his swansong. He couldn’t stand being on the sidelines for that.
Expect his resignation a few days after the leaders have gone.
That will cut it extremely fine for his successor to gain a foothold.
He will expect a smooth handover to Costello but I doubt if there will be no other challengers. Surely Turnbull would want to run even if he didn’t have the numbers. Nelson and Abbott would also want to but the former wouldn’t have a chance and Abbott can count.
So a brief two way tussle after APEC and an honourable self discharge for Howard.
Any clairvoyants out there? What do your crystal balls foretell?
Richard Jones, I suspect that much of what you say is possible, however, JWH could easily announce that his resignation (due to a rare tropical disease caused by K Rudd of course) will take place at the end of APEC, therefore being able to host APEC, but effectively relinquishing the leadership to Turnbull or Costello (or whomever the fallguy is to be) allowing them to take the helm as of the date of the announcement.
Tom.
Howard will stay PM until he is actually voted out. If he wins, he’ll be the Master again, and the Libs will exalt him to God-like status, so there won’t be any pressure on him to resign. The only way we’ll ever end his reign is by defeat at the polls.
I do not believe JWH will resign ahead of the election. To do so would be an admission of defeat and run the risk of complete demoralisation of the government.
The other advantage of hanging on is that in the case of a loss there is no certainty that Peter Costello would get the gig as Opposition Leader. Do not look for the PM to show any favours to the Treasurer.
JWH will hang on in the hope of a huge rabbit materialising between now and the election (My guess is 1 December, or 8 December). He really doesn’t want to give up Kirribilli any sooner than he has to.
STROP Says:
July 14th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
LABOR TO WIN 2007 ELECTION-
Welcome back Bill Weller to the blogspere –Where have u been. Apart from the obviously one eyed people predicting a Coalition landslide (Steven Kaye et al), I don’t think any of the more respected/experienced pseph people have called the election yet, so I will if for no other reason than to draw out the opinions of those ‘wiser heads’ who I think can/should call it soon
O so my prediction of an ALP victory based on 20 years of watching Australian Politics has been dismissed
If you believe the Morgan lLabor Party polls we would have had Mark Latham as PM (arrggghhh) this term!
Interesting that Greg Rudd gets the heave-ho, just as McDonnald renews HIS membership with the ALP! Kevin Rudd is a disgrace! His mother must be proud of him, to treat his brother lower than a union thug!
Is this the kind of good old Aussie bloke you want to rely on?
Like the guy in the pub you think is your mate, but when you find yourself in a tight corner and look around, he is standing with the other side!
Good to know we can rely on you Kev. What a guy! You’re a real Pal!
I look forward to seeing how you perform the first time the unions start slapping you around if you ever won (God forbid) an election!
Best thing I think is you just leave quietly.
A 57% two party preferred vote for the ALP may not be the fantasy it seems to be. Have a look here,
http://www.ozelection2007.info/forums/viewtopic.php?pid=1718#p1718
BMW
I think Strop was referring to pseph people with sites, very few unwilling to call it yet following 2004, as are few journo’s as so many got it wrong in 04.
I think following 04 some won’t call it until after the GG swears in the new cabinet.
Same mood is out there in the electorate, quite funny to see green and labor faces when you talk about the election, most do not want to get their hopes up again following previous defeats, which may also explain the mood.
Myself, I reckon 32 seats, originally thought 23, but Howard and co keep blundering around blaming everyon else for anything that is going wrong.
If I am wrong I am just an anonymous average poster who can fade away till the next election whilst the psephs will always have their predictions thrown back at them.
If I am right, well come election night I will be too plissed to post a comment saying I told you so.
I too don’t think that Howard will stand down. If he did, for whatever reason, people will wonder about his REAL motives, especially these days, where Howard is renowned for being disingenuous. These doubts would destroy his legacy – he would still be portrayed as a coward.
Howard will fight this one out, unless he is actually a coward.
The only possible way that I can see Howard leaving in a semi-honourable way would be if he was directly challenged over the leadership and lost. His departure would therefore be like Hawke’s, which certainly didn’t do Hawke too much damage when it comes to matters of legacy. If Howard really wants to get out now, then he will engineer a challenge to his leadership.
But, even so, I still think Howard will stick it out. He is addicted to power. Just watch his bag of tricks unfold as he does his best to maintain a hold of it. The dirt units being set up at taxpayers expense in numerous government departments is only the start.
Arbie Jay Says:
July 15th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
BMW
I think Strop was referring to pseph people with sites, very few unwilling to call it yet following 2004, as are few journo’s as so many got it wrong in 04.
I think following 04 some won’t call it until after the GG swears in the new cabinet.
===================================
I understand your point, but I suspect Strop will know I was joking.
Richard Jones, everyone knows (well, they SHOULD know) that Keating’s victory in 1993 was not an endorsement of his leadership or of the Government he led but was instead a rejection of Hewson and his GST. The electorate then waited patiently for another 3 years before beating Keating senseless, punishing him for inflicting “the recession we had to have” upon them.
Another interesting thing about the supposedly mega-popular Hawke – he wasn’t able to secure a swing to Labor in any of the 3 elections he contested as PM. Not one of them. Mr Howard, on the other hand, achieved swings to the Coalition twice in a row, a feat accomplished only twice since the introduction of the 2 party system in 1949.
Now, I highly doubt he’ll be able to do that a 3rd time, but he will win and will then retire in April or May of 2009, after celebrating the 13th anniversary of his first victory.
Steven, How can the Polls appear to be writing Howard off, but you think otherwise.
bmwofoz Says:
July 15th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I understand your point, but I suspect Strop will know I was joking.
Well I was referring to people with sites who have clearly done alot of homework on this subject over some time, Adam etc. However, I also have a lot of respect for what your average joe (like I am) has to say IF theyve done their homework.
BMW I havent read you predicting the outcome – must have missed that. Its all good, and I encourage anyone with sense to have a go at putting up their homework on seats and what they think can/ought to happen with them- If nothing else it kills the boredom whilst we wait for the inevitable. I dont make a living out of this stuff, thank God, buts it a lot better than watching crap on TV with the populist journo’s churning out dribble.
Well of course Steven Kaye I know that Keating’s election was not an endorsement of Paul Keating. Hardly. It was purely a GST win for Labor.
The campaign was very skilful and Hewson did bungle it somewhat. If not for the GST Hewson would have won and probably stayed there for almost as long as John Howard.
I absolutely think Howard may well consider resigning on health grounds after APEC. Yes he loves being in power but he would hate more than that a humiliating defeat.
It would be easy and even have the electorate feeling sorry for him.
How? He would suffer “chest pains” after a stressful few days with overseas leaders, be admitted to hospital for observations, stay overnight,and take his doctors’ advice to take it easy.
Headlines: “Howard Admitted to Hospital”. Which doctor can prove whether chest pains are real or not?
Cynical? Politics is cynical and loaded with lies as we have seen.
Sawford didn’t include petrol prices, because when he came up with his equation, petrol wasn’t such a huge issue for those on the edge of being able to pay their mortgages, who tend to live some distance from their work. Now it is.
That’s why Costello threatened the petrol companies with the big stick of the ACCC. Suddenly, there is no “weekly discount cycle”. Suddenly, prices are lower.
And don’t imagine for a moment that Costello didn’t know exactly what he was doing.
What occurred in 2004 with the Libs getting control of the Senate has seen the pendulum go too far one way (which then saw IR Laws bought in which was barely discussed in the election compaign). The people didn’t want Latham but Rudd is a totally different prospective and 2007 will see a correction of the 2004 result. Expect the unexpected. 16 seats are required for government in their own right however if they get either 75, they will still form the government with help of the independents (they will support the ALP as they are the party with the large no of seats even though they may have Coalition tendencies).
Howard won’t go before APEC which means he is locked in for a 2007 election. The people are not listening anymore, even one of my mates who has been a Liberal voter all his life is saying Howard is gone and change of government is likely. The Government is in deep trouble.
It always seems odd to me that we are here chatting away frantically yet the vast majority of those who will determine the outcome of this election don’t give a rats @rse about politics at all and may well deciede how they vote on the poster of a politician during a handshake or because thats the way their parents always voted or something even more petty!
Woops: Poster should read Posture (as in Latham’s handshake with Howard)
Martin B,
I believe that Tony Abbott was a member of the Liquor trades Union and of the Australian Journalists Association. I wouldn’t read too much into it. It’s bit like Victorian principals being members of the AEU. Hardly any of them have any commitment to the principles of unionism, to the principles of their profession or to their classroom “colleaguesâ€, but they still see benefits in being union members.
Bwomofz,
I am quite accepting of being excluded from he more experienced and respected pseph people, but I have already posted more than once my prediction that Labor will pick up 22 seats. This is not a call, but as the months roll by, it becomes less likely that John Howard can do a miracle, and a miracle is what it will take. If these figures occurred throughout the lead-up to the 1998 or 1996 or 1983 election, no one would be considering the possibility of a Liberal victory. It’s only Mr Howard’s miraculous clawbacks in 2001 and 2004 that make anyone consider him a possibility.
The state breakdowns in Newspoll are for three months and thus have larger samples, which should make them a little more reliable than ACNielsen breakdowns.
Some posters have made absurd statements about terrorist attacks being organised to help with the election, statements so nutty that they do not deserve a response. I am certainly not part of that conspiraphile group, but I wonder how the news of today’s ordered release of Dr Haneef on bail by the magistrate and his subsequent incarceration on the ministerial order of Kevin Andrews will play out politically. Given the evidence so far revealed in the public domain, it’s a big call, even Kafkaesque. Some may see it helping the government by creating fear in the community. I think it is more likely to create ridicule and outrage – and not just from the usual suspects.
Sorry, wrong thread.