Details at 11. Thanks as always to the Poll Bludger’s eastern states army of fast-typing Lateline watchers.
UPDATE: That’s Labor on 56, I should stress. In case you were wondering.
UPDATE 2: The Australian reports that Labor’s primary vote is down one point and the Coalition’s up one, to 47 per cent and 40 per cent. Rudd’s preferred leader rating has widened from 43-42 to 43-40. Respondents were asked how a Peter Costello leadership would affect their vote – 22 per cent said it would make them much less likely to vote Coalition and 7 per cent somewhat less likely, with only 8 per cent saying more likely.
UPDATE 3: Note the new headline. I’m sure this isn’t the first time Lateline’s scoop Newspoll figures differed slightly from what was then published.
Coota Bulldog Says:
July 24th, 2007 at 7:13 am
For all the comments about Howard moving into friendly WA, even the West Australian’s Westpoll shows the government failing to get Swan and Cowan, with a distinct chance of losing Hasluck and Stirling.
Which Westpoll are you referring to Coota ? Can your source it with an internt link if its a ‘new’ one please.
Leadership tensions between Howard and Costello always give the Coalition a boost in the polls rather than the other way around. Same thing happened in June last year, people just fundamentally do not want Costello as PM.
Hey all
Just back from freezing far north Queensland. Up there, Howard’s Aboriginal policies are receiving wide accolades.
I come back to NSW and the opinions are the opposite. I guess it’s easy for us to all sit back and postulate when children being murdered down the road by their parents is uncommon.
Meanwhile, the NSW Division is self-imploding as it becomes apparent that the Tammy Faye Bakker approach to management is inefficient.
Alex Hawke sitting on a 22 per cent seat? The guy still needs Clearasil – how is he going to manage an electorate or develop meaningful policy? Oh….that’s RIGHT …. these criteria don’t count for a thing as long as you have the numbers.
Curious. The real story (aside from ‘not much change’) is that the trend is slowly to the government. 40% primary vote is their best Newspoll in over 5 months, and then it was a once off.
Forget the TPP figure, it’s balderdash to extrapolate with any pretend accuracy from 3 years ago, with a different ALP leadership, set of dynamics, and minor party vote.
Yes, the Oz’s reporting of its polls has moderated. It’s not only that they want to help Howard over Costello, but I think they’ve learned some lessons from their flame war with the blogs. Polls aren’t bouncing around, there are some months to an election, and everyone needs to have a good lie down.
Despite the Haneef debacle, and the public dummy spit from Costello, the Coalition’s poll ratings haven’t dropped.
Could it be that those bloody Australian voters aren’t paying attention to what we bloggers consider to be the issues?
Yeah, most voters in mortgage belt territory couldn’t give a _____ about the Tampa, or Haneef – it’s only lefties in Inner City Sydney/Melbourne/Fairfax Newspaper readers who kick up a stink about this stuff. Why do you think Rudd is being so quiet about it all? Because it won’t win him any votes where it counts. Those outraged were always going to vote Labor anyway.
My take on the polls: is this the best the Government can do, in circumstances that are meant to be beneficial to them(economic prosperity, tax cuts/budget handouts, a media focus on terrorism/national security)? Howard has thrown everything, including the kitchen sink, at Rudd since January, yet he is still 10-12 points behind.
I’ve no doubt there are more election related bribes coming up, but will it work again for the Coalition?
I think the next newspoll move will show the greens returning to about 7-8% primary after Rudd’s forestry policy yesterday which should make the ALP primary about 43.5% + 61% preferences makes TPP 53.5/46.5 assuming no additional drift to/away from the Gov.
Cisco you could be right. However, that’s based on the assumption that anyone who’s serious about the environment gives their first preference to the ALP anyway.
Of course, we all prefer an ALP government to a Coalition one. But that’s what we use the preferential system for.
I would be interested now to see state by state breakdowns of Newspoll data as each opinion poll is released in the build up to election day. A Coalition win becomes possible if the Liberal/National primary vote TRENDS over the next 3 months towards 45/46 but, of course, there has to be a corresponding dip in the ALP primary vote to 42/41 (although I appreciate that there are many posters on this site and other blogs who now judge such dip will not occur). State by state breakdowns on the release of each poll might be helpful in picking up any trends particularly in NSW, the key state because it is about a third of the electorate. It is also a state with plenty of undecided voters or voters with no firm allegiances to one or other side of politics.
It’s all the sevens. As there have been 49 polls since Kevin Rudd became leader of the ALP, there is a nice symmetry of the number 7 to use for analysis.
First 7 polls (Dec – Jan) Last 7 polls (end June – July) sample ~ 10,000
First 14 polls (Dec – start March) Last 14 polls (end May – July) n ~ 20,000
First 7 polls ALP 46.8 Coalition 37.5 Others 15.7
Last 7 polls ALP 48 Coalition 38.8 Others 13.2
ALP has increased by 1.2%, Coalition by 1.3%, Others decreased by 2.5%
First 14 polls ALP 47.2 Coalition 37.3 Others 15.5
Last 14 polls ALP 47.7 Coalition 38.9 Others 13.4
ALP has increased by 0.5%, Coalition by 1.6%, Others decreased by 2.1%
Both periods show that both parties have increased their vote at the expense of the Others.
Comparing Newspoll July results to previous elections:
1995 ALP 39.3 Coalition 47.7
2001 ALP 40 Coalition 40.5
2004 ALP 40 Coalition 44
2007 ALP 47.5 Coalition 39.5
The similarities between 1995 and 2007 are remarkable, and clearly 2001 and 2004 aren’t even close.
According to the most read articles in The Age and the SMH, frilly knickers are by far more important than Haneef, children overboard, the economy etc.
Therefore:
If Costello dons a pair of frilly knickers his popularity will skyrocket.
If Howard promises free frilly knickers to Tasmanian lumberjacks his popularity in the soon-to-be-treeless state will skyrocket.
I’m certain that Rudd will seek out a pair of frilly knickers that match Howard’s frilly knickers.
However, Alexander Downer has been wearing frilly knickers for decades and it hasn’t done much for him.
POSSUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, Cooooooo-eeeeee ! Coooooooooooo-eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee !
Evan I agree. By rights the govt should be ahead in the polls given everything is going so well. But there are three things working against Howard now.
1. Workchoices. Even Beazely was ahead in the polls thanks to this.
2. Rudd. New face. Looks intelligent, conservative low-risk, family man. He’ll do.
3. Eleven years. Yes aussies are conservative but they’re not rusted on. They change slowly, but they do change. Even conservative voters are saying it’s time to give someone else a go.
That the polls haven’t changed despite Howard throwing everything at Rudd just shows that the electorate has made up it’s mind.
MINI ME GOVERNMENT?
Cisco I think you are absolutely right. The Greens vote will be around 8% or more on the day.
You notice in the latest Newspoll the increase for the Coalition was in the National vote. The National vote was always going to be around 5% no matter what the polls indicate.
This was a very good poll for John Howard after all the terrible publicity in the last week. One could have expected at least 56% Labor to 44% Coalition.
This poll may be a turning point. If John Howard can hold his vote in such circumstances then he has a good chance of closing the gap in four months.
Surely with this poll and if the next polls show a similar trend, the push to install Costello will stop – at least from the Coalition side of politics.
It would be in the interests of the ALP to encourage a switch of leaders.
Kevin Rudd’s forestry policy was as bad as his decision on the “koala road” which cost Goss government.
The ALP lost three seats and government over that one bad Rudd decision.
Many green voters will see there is no difference at all between a Howard Government and Rudd Government and may well decide to give their preferences to Howard to stop 12 years of a Mini Me Government.
It might be better for them to take their chances on Howard retiring and the leadership going to a more moderate leader such as Turnbull or Costello. Turnbull may well be better on environment policies that Rudd.
Green voters aren’t wedded to one side of politics or the other.
They are interested in outcomes. Many would vote Liberal if the Liberals had decent green policies.
I have spent a good deal of time over the past twenty or so years studying preference flows and how voters react to how they are told to vote
Labor voters follow the how to vote like sheep but the Green and Democrat voters tend to do what they want 80% of the time, even though they may be recommended to give their preferences to one side or another.
Bob Hawke understood the value of the green vote. Kevin Rudd does not. That may prove his fatal flaw. It’s happened before.
Was there a recent Westpoll? If so, what were the results?
The (semi-mythical) battlers/mortgage belters may not be interested in specific issues, but each time there’s a Haneef or a Tampa or whatever else it adds a little more colour to the picture of this government as corrupt, manipulative and cynical. And you’d be surprised – some of them do care, it’s certainly not limited to (also mythical) “inner city elites”. Speaking of which, I live in an inner suburb and I’ve never seen an elite in my area…
Glad you agree Richard and I was further convinced of this by Bob Brown on ????When asked how he would rate each of the major parties out of 10 on the environment He said “Coalition 2-3 … Labor 3-4″and further comment was made “..no difference” when pressed.
How this will play with the less than rabid green voters on the edge of the climate change/global warming debate you would be better placed to comment However my guess is that it will severely dent his claim to be forward thinking on environmental issues as his forest policy is a step back to union dominated policies of the past.
Rudd’s forestry decision has made it possible to gain two seats at least. If he’d kept Latham’s policy why in the world would people who voted against this last time vote for Rudd this time? Rudd will gain far more than he will lose by this decision and no Green bleating will change that fact.
I can’t see too many thinking Green supporters voting in Howard to get back at Rudd. If people just vote out of spite then god help us. It shows they are truly not serious and deserve everything they get.
Matters such as Haneef and Tampa matter to me and many of my friends/colleagues, and I live in Wagga. Does this make me a rural, basket-weaving, latte drinking, pinko, Howard hating, agricultural elite (and no, I’m not a lawyer).
I think that I have just invented a new demographic!
Very good result for Howard? Funny, I consider myself impartial, but that statement is a bit off.
Based on the margin of error, we are looking at status quo. No trend, no bump in primary vote for the Coalition – no movement of any kind.
Certainly, my theory on disengagement is holding up. The week of news for the coalition has been all bad, but the electorate seems to have ignored it.
As for the Green vote, remember this, as Labor primary vote remains high, the preference flows from the Greens on a national scale become less important. They certainly matter on a seat by seat basis where flows are different, but overall they become less indicative. The policy Rudd announced yesterday means he will win Bass and Braddon – lost to the protest over Lathams ineptitude. Weigh up whether a possible gain of 2 seats or the lowering of national Green preference flows matter at the moment. To win the election he has chosen correctly.
So what your saying Gary is that Rudd has changed from a supposed shade of green to a definite shade of YELLOW.
And here’s me thinking that 80% of Green preferences come back to Labor regardless. Greens might like to threaten that they can take their preferences to the Libs, but, really – if you were remotely serious about the environment or indeed social issues, are you really going to preference Howard over Rudd? Personally, while I’m sympathetic to many Green ideals, I think Labor is starting to realise that there isn’t much to gain by chasing Green prefs – Green voters tend not to follow the HTV as much as other parties, and the overwhelming bulk of them see themelves as being on the Left.
If Rudd’s looking yellow, then it must be the colour of pragmatism. Greens voters don’t follow HTVs, most of them preference the ALP anyway. Come this election, there will be VERY FEW voters who voted ALP 2pp last time who will now vote Green and preference the Liberals.
Sorry STROP, can’t link you to the latest Westpoll – but here are the figures
402 voters taken in early July
Primary vote – Coalition down four points to 46 p/c
ALP up one to 36 p/c
Greens up 2 to 8 p/c
2PP
Govt in front 53.5 vs 46.5 (from 55 vs 45)
First Westpoll this year to show a drop in Coalition support in WA
On those figures, ALP would keep Cowan and Swan, while also going within a whisker of getting Hasluck and maybe even Stirling
I can’t see too many thinking Green supporters voting in Howard to get back at Rudd.
It’s about as likely as Harold Holt making a comeback, if you ask me.
They did it once in Qld, yes. But never again.
Did anyone read that Bruce Baird was considering staying his retirement just to break the tension over preselections in Cook? Sounds like a case of ‘man deserts sinking ship, only to return after realising he left his keys behind’.
I am genuinely surprised that the Liberal Party were able to botch the preselection of a seat with what most people considered to be the best field of candidates thus far.
Another seemingly botched preselection, which has been overshadowed somewhat by the Cook debacle, is the seat of Lindsay. Jackie Kelly announced her retirement more than two months ago, publicly endorsing local councillor Mark Davies. It then emerged Howard didn’t want Davies, and looked out of the electorate to pursue Panthers recruitment manager, Peter Mulholland.
It now seems Mulholland has turned it down, and the likely candidate will be Kelly’s staffer, Karen Chijoff. It seems like, in Cook, the Liberal preselection in Lindsay will fall to a mediocre candidate right out of Kelly’s office.
Particularly with the Coalition attacks on former union officials becoming Labor candidates, it seems poor judgement to install what is otherwise a party hack into a seat that was won by a woman who prided herself on being an anti-politican. Is it a case of Howard not seeing the danger, or simply a matter of them running out of time and choosing the last one in the room?
Who’s talking about Green’s voters This is about 2004 coalition voters,concerned with climate change who have switched their vote in the polling to date based on Rudd’s green mirage.When push comes to shove Rudd says F**k the environment give me the votes!
Cisco there is only one way to beat a bloke like Howard and that is to “out Howard” him. Being completely different to him hasn’t worked. If it takes yellow rather than green to get rid of Howard I’m all for it. There are Howard policies I want gone. There are others I’m happy to see remain. The trouble with Howard is he want s to keep all of his policies, even the ones that clearly go against public opinion and that is what will get him in the end.
As Hugo, I think, once said if Rudd wins we will probably be disappointed by Christmas but give me a disappointing Rudd over Howard any day of the week. We can deal with Rudd at the ballot box in the future if need be.
An interesting thread from Tim Dunlop’s site?
Did anyone notice this poll on marginal seats?
In non marginal Coalition seats, the primary vote is Labor 44 Coalition 43 and in non marginal Labor seats it is Labor 56 Coalition 29. In marginal seats the primary vote is Labor 51 Coalition 36.
2PP in non marginal Coalition seats is Labor 52 Coalition 48. Non marginal Labor seats are Labor 66 Coalition 34. 2PP in marginal seats is Labor 59 Coalition 41..
http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/0703%20Marginals.pdf
Cisco, what politician doesn’t say that? Rudd has probably gained himself 2 out of 16 seats he needs. The logging policy in mainstream Australian suburbia is a minor issue. It is only valid to the Greenies who’s preferences he may not need in the seats where they are prevalent anyway?
Now watch him release something that allays the fears of the mining community and he will secure a couple of WA seats the same way.
It may not be pretty, but he is playing to win and he is doing it well.
Politically Correct,
Sorry to have to burst your bubble but I think you will find it is the State Govt’s Indigenous policy that is all the rage.
The Howard one is the NT version which is the opposite of what State Government proposes.
Richard Jones, if you have spent a good deal of time over the past twenty years studying preference flows, haven’t you noticed, not only that the majority of Green voters don’t pay much attention to how-to-vote recommendations, but also the consistent pattern that a majority of their preferences flow to the ALP? Why do you suppose that is?
It’s all very well to suggest, as you do, that a majority of Green voters would direct their preferences to the Liberals if they thought the Liberals had superior environmental policies. It would be about as meaningful to suggest that a majority of union activists would direct their preferences to the Liberals if they thought the Liberals had superior industrial relations policies–which isn’t going to happen, either. If the Wooden Horse of Troy had foaled, horses today would be much easier to feed.
Well, I am a Greens voter (and member). Of course, I will be putting the Greens first, but there is no way on earth that I would preference the Liberals second. Although I wish Labor would make more effort on environmental issues, rather than being only a fraction better that the Liberals, the need to finally rid this country of Howard is paramount.
And many Greens voters would think the same thing. They may be disappointed about Rudd caving into the forest industry and the coal industry, but most think along these lines:
First, we’ll vote Green and hope that we pick up some seats. That would be cool!
Second, whatever happens get rid of Howard (Howard stands for the direct opposite of just about everything a Greens voter or member stands for)
Third, once Rudd is PM, then work on him to do better on environmental initiatives. At least he’s not Howard and Labor are much closer to the Greens in terms of world view.
And I do not follow how-to-vote cards. I like to make up my own mind and I think many Greens voters (who I know) are the same. I always put the Liberals last, no matter what. Labor gets my second preference.
I suspect that Rudd is banking on all this. He knows that he doesn’t have to please Greens voters to get their preferences. He only has to be better than Howard.
And finally, I suspect that Rudd will be better when he is PM. I like Rudd. I might be wrong, but I think many Greens voters understand that he has to play the game for now. But once he is PM, they will scrutinise him much more closely and work harder to hold him to account. He will set a new agenda when he is in government. But for now, he has to work around all of Howard’s ridiculous wedges and traps.
Howard, of course, is a lost cause – an environmental, economic, and social vandal at heart. Nothing will ever change with him. Enough said.
“After a week full of absolutely terrible images of Howard and Costello and the Govt in the papers and on TV – no change in voting intention?”
The thesis that most people just aren’t paying much attention and have made up their minds, for now at least, is looking better and better with each poll.
MINI ME GOVERNMENT
I’m not suggesting Green voters will vote Howard out of spite. I’m suggesting that they might do it strategically.
As of now they don’t have too much to lose.
I’m also not suggesting that Bob Brown or other Greens would “give” preferences to the Liberals.
They may well offer split ticket suggestions.
There’s little chance that Kevin Rudd can gain government without preferences from the Greens and other minors.
For example he cannot win the seat of Richmond without Greens preferences and that’s on a 1.5% margin, notionally at least.
Yes Kevin Rudd has firmed up his chances of getting the union/business vote in Tasmania with his support of the Gunn’s pulp mill and continued logging in old growth forests.
What he gains in Tasmania he loses on the mainland plus in the media. Just keep an eye out for the comments!
What he has also done, however, is sideline Peter Garrett who now has nowhere to go. I feel sorry for Peter. I know him, well. What does he do now?
Kevin Rudd has opened up the opportunity for Malcolm Turnbull to outflank him on environmental issues, which no doubt he will try to do. He’s not a multi-millionaire for nothing. He has a very active brain.
Now the contest is getting very interesting.
Might be time to put money on the Coalition if the odds are good.
It’s going to be far closer than I thought a week ago.
I know that as poll obsessive/compulsives we have a different view of the world but I am still surprised by some of the comments on the blog.
What does Joe Citizen know of the government’s problems? Probably only a 30 sec grab on the nightly news and he probably remembers little of that compared to the really big story about the duck in Scotland which steals packets of crisps.
Even if he retains some of the news of the last week – is he likely to say “Gee, Howard lied about Tampa, that all makes an enormous difference. I am abandoning the Liberals and voting Labor”? I really don’t think so.
This week’s events portray the government in crisis – a perception that is very important if a government is to be changed. However, this won’t be reflected in the polls for some time and then only if there is a continuing barrage of bad news, otherwise all that will be remembered from this week is the story about the duck.
The change in view by 11 people in Newspoll’s survey is meaningless.The polls in a months time will be much more interesting if the perception of crisis gains momentum.
The thesis is sound at the moment but I think there will be more attention when the election date is announced.
“Noocat Says:
July 24th, 2007 at 11:41 am
And finally, I suspect that Rudd will be better when he is PM. I like Rudd. I might be wrong, but I think many Greens voters understand that he has to play the game for now. But once he is PM, they will scrutinise him much more closely and work harder to hold him to account. He will set a new agenda when he is in government. But for now, he has to work around all of Howard’s ridiculous wedges and traps.
Howard, of course, is a lost cause – an environmental, economic, and social vandal at heart. Nothing will ever change with him. Enough said.”
I agree with the above.All I want is for Howard and the Coalition to be defeated.If Mr Rudd has to look like a younger version of JWH so be it.I think you are right also noocat in that once in government they can actually set the agenda.I think Mr Rudd is more to the left than he is appearing,but anything is better than JWH.
I’m not a member of the Greens but they will get my senate vote.I don’t want either party to have a majority.JWH has proved with WorkChoices etc that the major parties cannot be trusted with the absolute power.
J-D Why have Green voters preferenced Labor 80% or so in the past? Simply because Labor were streets ahead of the Liberals on envonmnental policies. Now they are not. They are about dead even. So why would preferences not flow in a similar way?
There are Green voters of course who are to the left of Labor and would never preference Liberal and particularly Howard in a fit, but there are also very many of the proverbial “doctors’ wives” who will vote Green first and Liberal second. There are also the middle of the road Green voters who will split evenly between Labor and Liberal and could go either way.
Noocat, I only wish you were right. I fear that Kevin Rudd us running true to type. Were you aware of his koala road policy? Basically a main road right through rich koala habitat south of Brisbane. He didn’t give a stuff about the koalas.
He may really be a leopard and those spots may be real. He’s not a green disguised merely for the election. He may even prove worse than the Howard regime on the environment.
Amidst a lot of wild commentary, three things are certain:
1. The Coalition has made a small gain in the last two polls, Morgan and Newspoll – the latter despite a very bad week or two.
2. Rudd’s forest policy will turn off a lot of Green voters.
3. There’s a helluva long way to go.
I would be more than interested in hearing any comments on the facinating data in my previous post at 11.34am.
Surely some of you have actually taken the time to read it rather than be more interested in your own particular areas of interest.
It could well be that Lib leadership had a positive effect for the govt, as people might have subconsciously been thinking Howard vs Costello rather than Howard vs Rudd.
The Haneef affair does not appear to have had an impact yet; however, the most damaging revelations appeared late or outside the polling period; the suspects in notebook affair happened on Monday. The longer Haneef drags on, the worse it will get for the govt, as happened with Hicks. The govt can not afford this, as it is already so far behind.
Other revelations in the Howard biography, like knowing Workchoices would adversely affect some workers, were revealed late in the polling period too.
Most voters are concerned with climate change; on this, Rudd is seen as Much better than Howard. The forestry issue will not have much impact outside Tassie; if it was a big issue on the mainland, Latham would have done much better there.
If we exclude the 60-40 Newspoll in late May, Labor’s 2PP since the Budget has been 59, 57, 55, 56, 56, 55. It’s gone from about 58 to 56. This is a very clear election-winning position.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/howard-trips-up-in-perth/2007/07/24/1185043081492.html
‘Howard trips up in Perth’ – literally it seems, but the tone of the article is really suggesting that Fairfax is focusing on the age factor as significant.
Richard Jones: He may even prove worse than the Howard regime on the environment.
The only way Rudd could be worse on the environment then Howard, is if he took a flame thrower and started burning down rain forests.
Greens also care about Climate Change, and Howard has shown himself to be a Climate Change denier asleep on the job.
This idea Greens voters are all of a sudden going to advance the cause of the coalition is fanciful. What is being said here is Labor lost seats last election due to there forestry policy and now they will lose seats due to there new policy (a reverse policy). Spare me. If this issue makes the election close I’ll go he, given the many other issues that will be flying around in the election.
Conservative commentator and Howard supporter Andrew Bolt said on radio today that “Howard is unelectable”. I agree. Another factor to take into account.
Just wondering if anyone had any particularly interesting takes on local politics – perhaps the seat they live in etc. In 1998 the Coalition seemed to do better than Labor working the marginals on the ground despite Labor dominating nationwide; you look at seats like Deakin and despite the Coalition’s precarious position you wonder how the incumbent could lose. Obviously if people want to change government then the tidal wave swamps them, but local candidates can be very influential.
Labor can probably kiss Boothby goodbye with the Cornes dress fiasco.
Also if people can post news on some local campaigns they’ve seen, perhaps websites if candidates have them that’d be interesting discussion – getting serious this far out must show their party is serious about winning certain seats etc.
Gary Bruce, you sound like a Victorian, what do you make of the Greens/Liberal cooperation in the State Parliament? The ALP’s website http://www.greens-liberaldeal.com or whatever it is insinuates the Greens will do a federal preference deal with the Libs so they can take a shot at Tanner.
Phil:
1. the impact of tax cuts, top up super payments, family allowance lump sums are flowing through. Some bounce back had to be expected. Is it value for the dollors spent. Not at this stage.
2. SFW and where do they go! The Greens have never delivered seats in any proprotion to their alleged influence. Rudd will take two seats in Tassie because of the change in logging policy and the Greens will just whine. Which is the better strategy for winning office.
3. No there’s not! Aprroximately 100 days. I think you are hoping for the magic rabbit to appear.
What does this MYTHICAL 10% better than th e Coalition get you environmentally Hmmm
Does it save any trees No
Does it fix the Murray/darling No
Does it continue to limit uranium mining No
Does it get you an extra rainwater tank No
I suppose that with all that state/fed co-operation the desal plants will get built more quickly.Whoohoo
Richard split tickets in a few Labor marginals would be interesting