Having done my bit to fan the flames of anti-Australian hysteria, props are due to the paper for this morning’s typically excellent piece by George Megalogenis on regional variations in housing price movements. Crucially, a “two-speed housing market” is identified in New South Wales, promising to hit the Coalition hard in marginal suburban and hinterland electorates (specifically Parramatta, Lindsay, Dobell, Robertson and all-important Bennelong), while delivering worthless dividends in the rich inner suburbs (where double-digit swings to the Coalition were recorded in the March state election). There’s a particularly handy cut-out-and-keep graphic listing the 20 electorates where prices have moved most heavily either way, the “price rises” list being monopolised by Western Australia. This ties in nicely with localised polling showing the Coalition collapsing in NSW, while holding ground or better in WA. Also instructive are Possum Comitatus‘s renowned observations on the ratio of interest payments to disposable income. Further analysis of Megalogenis’s data from Simon Jackman.
oops, try again
Nevertheless, it is interesting to note where the “Republican Liberals†live, who I think are also the “doctors wives†and the “Petro Georgiou Liberalsâ€
Liberal-held seats which voted for the Republic, showing Yes vote
Kooyong 64.2
Higgins 63.7
Wentworth 60.2
Menzies 59.9
Goldstein 58.0
Bradfield 55.6
Curtin 55.5
Ryan 55.3
Bennelong 54.6
Warringah 54.5
Sturt 53.7
Deakin 52.9
Boothby 51.9
Berowra 51.7
Aston 51.5
Obviously Labor is not going to win Bradfield, although I suspect there will be above-state-average swings to Labor in all these seats. But Wentworth, Deakin, Boothby, Sturt and Ryan are on the list, and those are clearly seats where small-l-liberal issues can hurt the big-L-Liberal members.
To say nothing of Bennelong!
“But Wentworth, Deakin, Boothby, Sturt and Ryan are on the list, and those are clearly seats where small-l-liberal issues can hurt the big-L-Liberal members.”
Surely you aren’t suggesting that conservative republicans will turn on Malcolm? 🙂
The ‘republican liberals’ aren’t really small-l liberals (most of that group departed the Liberal fold sometime ago), but technocratic managerial types who think Howard is past it now, they might prefer Rudd to Howard but would stick with Costello if he was PM. Rudd is targeting this group. On WA it is really going to defy the national trend as dramatically as some tip? True Labor did lose 2 WA seats in 1972 but then there was an unpopular Labor state govt and Labor was coming off a very high vote in 1969, not the current case. Even in 1972 I don’t think there was the discrepancy in Labor support between WA and the rest of the country that would be required in 2007 for a ‘WA saves Howard’ outcome.
If current poll numbers in NSW and in Coalition safe seats hold up, Berowra will fall.
I think it was St Paul who to paraphrase described the people around Rudd as poll driven to the point where they wouldnt get out of bed without first consulting a poll.
On polling one group is completely led by raw polling figures, ie 58-42 must mean Howard will lose and others look with the rear view mirror and say he escaped the last 3 times in the campaign so you cant write him off.
So I think at some point you have to go on instinct – and believe when all is said and done – the substantive factors cut through which in politics is the economy and who has a consistent set of beliefs – Its still Howard – Labor hasnt changed – as someone called it is Midway Labor and I believe come polling day Rudd will go down for that reason.
Write me off as mad – no doubt some of you will but I am calling it for Howard, I see that Rudd has been seduced by the polls and has no intention of slaughtering the sacred cows he must to win. The liberals by 2-4 seats.
Laugh now but mark my words in 4 months.
For those interested, here’s a pendulum that includes state by state swings from Newspoll:
http://flag.eaglesflyinghigh.com/election/?snap=7
(since there were no swings listed for the NT or Tas, I’ve used the minimum swing, ie WA’s).
Labor has every State govt and a massive current lead in the polls that has been maintained for several months. Nothing is working for the Tories, and it looks to me as if they’re the ones in need of reform. WorkChoices and Climate Change are cutting through and Rudd is neutralising the govt advantage on economy. The “It’s Time” factor is also working in Labor’s favour. More bad things can still happen to the govt, particularly given Bush will be at APEC. This all points to a big Labor landslide at the election.
Ryan voted for ‘Federalism’? Ryan didn’t exist that long ago!
BTW as Glenn Rhodes’ great study showed, all of Brisbane voted against Federation. But the rest of Qld (bar Rockie and the Downs) voted for it. Indeed the more ‘remote’, the greater the lust for federation.
And now they just love bashing Canberra. No pleasing some people, or their grand-children…
Lord D,
If current poll numbers in NSW and in Coalition safe seats hold up, Mark Vaile might be out of a job!
The Newspoll data suggests an almost unbelievable 16.3% swing against safe government seats in NSW.
It’s astonishing.
Ed St John. Your thesis is half right: Rudd Labor doesn’t have a coherent philosophy. And for all his personal reflection on Bonhoffer, I don’t think he ever will. He is a technocratic compassionate conservative. (Conservative both in the methodological, and the ‘hard work is all’ sense).
Do they need a strong ideological base? No, not to win power off a tired, 11 year old government.
Would you name the ‘sacred cows’ Rudd should jettison? And please don’t say ‘the unions’. After months of Oz led union bashing, IR simply hasn’t rebounded on Labor. For the simple reason that they – or rather the ACTU campaign and the perceived excesses of the Act – long ago convinced enough voters the pendulum had swung too far to employers.
All the sensible explanations of the slump in government support since then have built on that theme: ie however good macro-economic GDP and employment growth have been, sufficient swinging voters, especially from the lower-middle class, feel insecure whether it be because of increased mortgage repayments, stalled wage growth or fear of unfair dismissal.
Howard’s only hope is to reharness that fear, but it’s not clear how they can do so – the souffle that baked Latham isn’t likely to rise again.
Edward if substantive factors are cut to cut thru the Government is doomed. The economy has failed ordinary Australians. While income and profits and tax cuts have been funnelled towards those who need them less, most of Australia has been debt funding the lifestyle of the boom.
Now with massive debt and a feeling the boom wont last forever we are sitting up and asking “Hey how come all I’ve got out of Howard’s massive boom it a massive debt, and why is he making it much easier for big business to cut my pay and sack me”. Keep talking up the economic creditials it is the weakest element of the campaign for Howard because even those with the most limited understanding of wealth know when they don’t have it and if it is as good as is gets then they should really have some shouldn’t they. Wiser better people than me have written good articles about this over the last month or so, it has been obvious in the electorate for more than a year.
Although I always thought Beazley was going to win and was the wisest bet, Rudd seems to have freed up the grumpy to vote labor.
Exactly what is it that Howard believes in? As his great mentor once said “please explain”. At least Pauline was pretty honest.
“I see that Rudd has been seduced by the polls and has no intention of slaughtering the sacred cows he must to win.”
I’m not going to call you mad it looks to me like it has come straight from the hymnal of liberal song, so faithful would be the right expression.
What evidence do you have that Rudd is poll driven, it seems to me Howard is more obviously guilty of this with his stunt after failed stunt this calendar year? Where are Rudd’s poll driven stunts I’m struggling to remember them?
Finally ‘sacred cows’ – care to elaborate or is this a reference to the News limited press and repeating their ridiculous mantras?
Edward, ALL major-party politicians and everyone who works for them are poll-driven, as anyone who’s ever been one or worked for one knows. If you think people here are obsessed by polls, you should be at the Parliament House coffee-shop at 7am on “Newspoll Tuesday.” Getting up at 6am in Canberra in winter to read Glen Milne is only for the truly obsessed. Howard’s office scrutinises poll data as intently as Rudd’s, in fact more so since they have the public service to do it for them.
These things ultimately come down to zen like factors – I dont buy the I’ve missed out on prosperity theme.
Substitute grocery prices for reading to kids and you can see Labor still doesnt get it. What is the great overarching narrative of Rudd – I can remember reconciliation, for all of us – Rudd ????
Howard will win because of the economy and he will win because as much as the touchy feely issues sound good – people still vote on the core gut feeling of who will be a safe pair of hands – Labor partially gets it with Rudd but they havent done enough rethinking of their own policy.
Medicare Gold’s fairwork australia for example, tax policy, health policy etc? There is still a lot of doubt out there as to what really Labor stand for other than we like unions. Last time I checked union membership is 15% so obviously a lot of people dont. There is also a sense of unease about recessions and Labor – Rudd’s played games on these issues but he hasnt nailed it.
Before you all pile on remember I picked the 2PP in NSW weeks before!
I’m not helping you test drive the liberal hymnal anymore until someone mails me the labor one … unless Adam is using that.
Well done Edward. As is your right you’ve made your predicition known but as far as I’m concerned you’ve yet to provide a good argument for thinking that way except for a pile of “ifs” and possibilities. Just what are the issues which will swing it Howard’s way?
I have now posted seat-by-seat results for the French legislatives, plus maps.
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/f/france/
Sorry Edward I hadn’t read your previous posting. All of those things you mention are known now by the electorate and we know what ALL of the polls are saying. You understimate two important factors – Rudd and the anti Howard feeling due to his IR laws. As Matt Price says these laws are a dog and they will dog Howard upto the election.
Adam,
” Getting up at 6am in Canberra in winter to read Glen Milne is only for the truly obsessed.”
That’s truly funny.
I’ll think that you’ll find that there is a provision for Members to attend party Meetings.
Work Choices is an Abuse of power, overturning Territory Legislation ie Civil Unions in the ACT and the NT Nuclear Waste Act is an abuse of power. Silk Wall paper for Janet in the Flash Plane is an abuse of power.
A meeting I can handle.
Well John Howard had his cabinet meeting and gave his colleagues every opportunity to challenge him. No one spoke up. They must now collectively take responsibility for what happens.
No one in that room had the courage to say “the king has no clothes”. The cruel Wizard of Oz analogy is unfortunately too close to the truth.
Yes, John, it is you and the policies you have espoused all these years.
It was unfortunate for you that you gained control of the Senate and were able to pass the IR laws.
These laws were the last straw for many and made it easy to campaign against you as not caring for the average working person by making it easier for big business to reduce working conditions and restrain wages.
It would appear that John Howard will indeed take us to the next election and it would be remarkable indeed if he won. It would be Lazarus with a quadruple bypass.
Edward St John ( I knew the original Ted St John, lovely man) you are not mad, but you need to take off your rose-tinted spectacles and look at the polls seriously. The Coalition is headed right now for a very serious loss, equivalent to the Howard win in 96.
Almost nothing can stop Rudd winning. A change of leader would have given the Coalition a chance but that clearly is not going to happen, unless Howard has the proverbial “chest pains” and retires suddenly. Even then it might be a messy struggle which would damage the Coalition’s chances even more.
Whoever takes over the leadership is likely to be doomed to be in opposition for ten years or more and frankly who in Liberal ranks wants that?
Would Malcolm Turnbull hang around for ten years? Not likely. He has other things to do than sit on the opposition front bench either as leader or shadow minister for an extended period of time.
It is quite likely that the polls will continue to track sideways for the next few weeks and will probably come closer in the last week or so before the election. I had predicted the result would be 52.5% Labor and 47.5% Coalition. It is now looking more likely to be 53%Labor and 47% Coalition.
Who knows it may be even greater than that although we in Australia are not inclined to huge swings. Should see the Indian state parliaments. They have huge swings at elections.
Ah well Peter the Pusillanimous, John gave you the chance today and you squibbed it. And you Malcolm? Why didn’t you speak up?
We and Howard are in unchartered waters here. The change in voter thinking has never happened to this extent to the Howard government and as far as I’m aware no previous government. Surely that must be cause for concern/joy (depending on who you are supporting). I can’t help but feel the electorate breathed a great sigh of relief some months ago and swung accordingly. I believe much of the primary vote Labor is enjoying now is rock solid, give or take two percent.
Frankly, it may be to the Libs long term advantage if they were to lose this time. The economy is still strong, unemployment is low, etc, etc. If the economy were to turn down in the next few years – in the first or second term, they would have the biggest stick in the world to beat the ALP around with … look the economy was strong when we left office, remember the how good it was, etc. etc. It worked a treat during the Whitlam government, and would work again.
I find Edward entertaining, when he says that ultimately voting comes down to “zen like factors” and “core gut feeling” (which I assume are opposed to non-core gut feelings?). It is of course exaclty the sort of language that Stephen Colbert satirises using the term “truthiness”, they are the things we know because our gut tells us they are right, even though there is no real evidence to support the claim. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
If people really are going to vote for the coalition, surely there will be reasons for it, rather than saying voters are all just irrational.
John Howard is the main problem that the coalition has. But it is too late to change 3 – 4 months out. It would look like panic and be a disaster. JoHo should have gone last July, but obviously gambled on being up against Kimbo. But Ruddy cam along and pulled the rug out! Even March or April may have worked, the Peter Costello honeymoon may have in turn pulled the rug out from under Ruddy. But it is too late now …
I will join Richard Jones on 53 -47.
Ed, I don’t think I’ve ever read so much baseless, mindless twonk. Have a lie down and straighten your head out for a bit.
I agree with blackburnpsep, I think Howard is the problem. I don’t think he is necessarily hated, I just think people think he has had long enough, and that Rudd is a better alternative P.M. than Costello. I still think Costello should’ve done a Keating late last year, he should’ve challenged Howard, and if he lost he should’ve gone to the back bench. Then he would’ve had a realistic chance of challenging now, or when the next Newspoll is released, but he didn’t do it cos he is too gutless, which is why Howard doesn’t even think he should be P.M.
Can I follow who ever took 54:46, or if they don’t want to share 54.5:45.5.
Just thinking the undecideds who can actually do a formal vote will water things down a bit.
Whitlam was badly hit by the oil crisis which was largely responsible for giant interest rate increases. He also had some dud economic managers.
He did undertake some great reforms though that are still with us.
We are probably in for a rough ride in the next year or two especially if the collaterised debt obligations in the USA really get out of control and their economy is damaged. Also there is likely to be a stockmarket downturn. Kevin Rudd is aware of these things. That’s why he is telling voters that the “boom” won’t last. He’d had to have so pretty bad managers to do a Whitlam.
Martin B said
“Consideration of purely party political business certainly goes beyond the guidelines for cabinet business as laid down in the Cabinet Handbook, and certainly there is a moral argument against the expenditure of public funds on such. But I don’t think there is any legislative restrictions on such behaviour. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)”
Thanks for replying Martin, regardless of the right and wrong of it and who does it now and has done it in the past it comes hard on the heels of the criticism Howard copped over the Kirribilli cocktail party. I don’t think it would be looked at favourably by those who have to account for private and business components for their tax purposes.
But as I said the article was of interest for this line.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22085308-2702,00.html
“The meeting, ostensibly called to discuss climate change, became an open debate about the Coalition’s dire polling position. ”
Ostensibly is defined as “from appearances alone; “had been ostensibly frank as to his purpose while really concealing it”.
Interesting choice of adverb.
To be fair, Arbie Jay, it is Shanahan’s choice of words, not Howard’s.
Richard Jones Re Whitlam (getting off topic I know)
The oil was only the half of it
-the western developed economies all ‘matured’ about the same time and the surplus of demand for labour over supply collapsed in a heap. Whitlam was the proud beneficiary of a tonne of baby boomers all coming on the market seeking professional jobs when the ‘value add’ from each job in terms of productivity was approaching zero
-the Vietnam War had bankrupted the US and undermined the global trade system based on the strenght of the US
-Australia’s cossetted tripartite protection system was no longer sustainable. Whitlam reduced the tariffs, Fraser did very little and it fell to Hawke and Keating to make the real changes to open up Australia to the world.
-Some of Whitlam’s ‘economic managers’ didn’t believe in capitalism, Jim Cairns being the greatest of those
-Whitlam himself (as Gerard Henderson, in one of his rare lucid moments, says) was not interested in economics. He had not gone into the job of PM to do economics. My own view was he saw himself as a statesman from the beginning, rather than earn it.
-the Federal Treasury was actively fighting the Whitlam Government, probably because Jim Cairns didn’t believe in capitalism
Rudd is well aware of the history of the ALP as a reforming party, and the need to avoid Whitlam’s mistakes.
I’ll have to agree with Edward on one thing: Berowra(my local seat) will stay Liberal, no matter what happens nationally. It would take a 14% swing for the ALP to win such blue ribbon areas as Thornleigh, Pennant Hills, Normanhurst and Hornsby. It ain’t gonna happen – too many oldies and rusted on Liberal voters.
We need a few Liberals on this site for political balance, otherwise we’d be just another Rudd For PM Club(which I’m a proud member of!).
Hilarious: Howard discovering the joys of the internet! Check out his youtube video, and the abusive comments accompanying it.
A rather good ALP anti Howard TV ad on tonight!
Very good summary Riccardo.
# Martin B Says:
July 17th, 2007 at 11:05 am
“52-48 in AC Nielsen for QLD would mean 2 maybe 3 seats for Labor. Unless seats like Hughes went for Labor it would mean Rodent Triumphant.â€
No, as pointed out 52-48 in Qld would be a statewide swing of 5%. If this swing was uniform across the country then 2 seats would fall in Qld, Vic SA, WA and Tas, 6 in NSW and 1 in the NT giving an ALP government.
And that is only just a win. I still fear my prediction of Howard by three will happen
“Would you name the ’sacred cows’ Rudd should jettison? And please don’t say ‘the unions’. After months of Oz led union bashing, IR simply hasn’t rebounded on Labor. For the simple reason that they – or rather the ACTU campaign and the perceived excesses of the Act – long ago convinced enough voters the pendulum had swung too far to employers.”
And under a ALP government the ACTUs YR@W campaigns would not be protected and would be illegal. see The Age 28/4/07. So under Howard we can and under Rudd we cant. People are starting to question this and ALP candidates cannot answer in a way that makes them feel better about it
Bill Weller
Which one of Kingston, Wakefield or Makin don’t you think Labor will win.
I would wait until Howard launches his anti ALP campaign into the lounge rooms of voters before being confident of an ALP landslide. People i am talking to are tired of Howard but wary of Rudd and things can turn very quickly.
Martin the ALP will win all three. SA wont be the problem
In Kingston Family First has a big following, even if the ALP does a deal with FF and they direct preferences to Rishworth i believe that around 70% would still direct them to Richardson as he has considerable support with them
Bill,
Sorry, I now realise it wasn’t you who said they would only win 2 in SA.
I’m not sure why we are talking of applying the Qld swing nationwide, especially as 48-52 is clearly highly speculative.
‘as he has considerable support with them’ should read –as he will have their support.–
I was told that he attends the local AOG church but have not had that confirmed
I think they will win Makin easily, the equivilent state seat of Newland is now a Labor seat via 12.3% swing at the 2006 election.
# Martin J Says:
July 17th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I’m not sure why we are talking of applying the Qld swing nationwide, especially as 48-52 is clearly highly speculative.
But its fun applying everything to this election as although the ALP is way ahead it wont take much to change that and then the somewhat strange predictions will seem not that strange at all
Martin J Says:
July 17th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Bill,
Sorry, I now realise it wasn’t you who said they would only win 2 in SA.
If the ALP did not win the three here in SA then the ALP would have to be worried. The three are gimmes
If the polls do change for the government, will it be a slow incremental change where they pick up a percent a week, or will some event, say a major screw up by Rudd, or some genius policy announcement cause a dramatic change in the space of just a couple of weeks?
Is it reasonable to suggest that hundreds of thousands of people may wake up in a months time and decide to support the government, or will there be a point where the Government just doesn’t have enough time to change enough votes? I guess I am asking if there is actually such a thing as a tipping point where people’s perceptions of the Government make it impossible for the Govnerment to persuade.
Oh and on the outlawing of the YR@W campaign under Rudd i suppose we wont need it anyway as the ALP is the workers friend mmm i wonder if the nurses and ambos etc here in SA thought that over the last month
Simon i am expecting a slow move to the government then a major issue to get them over the line. Howard wont make the mistakes of Keating.
yeah sorry I was sposed to put Ryan re Republic not Federalism. another dumb moment from a tired punter. I will resist commenting before waking up properly first. Amen.