Today’s Roy Morgan phone poll of 572 voters has Labor leading 59-41 – a 1.5 per cent shift in Labor’s favour from the last phone poll two weeks ago, which complicates the picture presented by last week’s face-to-face poll showing a shift back to the Coalition. Respondents were asked how they would vote if alternative leaders were in place, which provides good news for Malcolm Turnbull and bad news for Peter Costello. Morgan’s report includes a quote from our friend Possum Comitatus, who a few weeks ago put in a rare good word for the agency’s recent record.
I do not know the margin of error for a small sample such as this,but it is looking ominous for JWH.And if the RBA raises interest rates again before the next election the baseball bats may well and truly be out.
(Shame about Mr Bracks,as someone from NSW I thought he was a good politician,if ever any pollie can be called good !)
I think a 95% confidence level for p = 0.59 and n = 572 is +- 2.1%. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.
Wow, what a day! Bracks resigns, then the Haneef case officially falls over.
Surely Kelty at the very least should resign(the DPP is going in a week or so), and what about Kevin Andrews? I would argue his credibility as a minster has been shot to pieces. HA HA The Howard’s Government’s attempt to use Haneef as a political tool was a failure – a wedge gone wrong, right Howard?
I think Howard gave up looking at the polls 2 months ago- his use-by-date was slapping him in the face every time he looked in the mirror to have a shave- what a contrast to Bracks signing off- the sentiment will be very different for JWH when he walks away from politics.
Vic Deputy Premier John Thwaites quits
Victorian Deputy Premier John Thwaites has announced his resignation, just hours after Premier Steve Bracks quit as leader.
Mr Thwaites said Mr Bracks’ resignation had prompted his own decision to quit.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/070727/2/142c3.html
And this from Peter Costello on Brackie —
Provider navigation:
Summary | AAP | Photos
Friday July 27, 03:30 PM
Federal Treasurer Peter Costello says he sympathises with Premier Steve Bracks’ decision to step down, saying politics is very hard on families.
Mr Bracks announced his retirement from politics after eight years as premier, saying now was the right time to stand down.
“It’s something he has thought about and only he would know the pressures on him from the family point of view,” Mr Costello told reporters in Melbourne.
“He was very focused on Victoria, and obviously I didn’t agree with everything he did, but as a premier he did some good things for his state.
“He will be remembered as somebody who tried to administer the state on a sustainable basis.”
This is the first time Ive EVER agreed with anything Peter Costello has said about just about anything.
STROP you are dead right. Bracks has his legacy left in tact, but Howard, whether he quits, is toppled or voted out, will have shredded his legacy by a tenacious greed to hang on.
I’ve ranted about Howard’s ‘legacy’ at length here.
I still think that Howard’s decision to stay as leader was fundamentally not about ‘clinging to power’ or delusions of leaving a grand legacy, Jeanette’s lady of the manor schtick notwithstanding.
At this point in time, for the Libs to change leader would be tantamount to conceding defeat. Sure, Labor in ’83 changed leaders at short notice, but tey were not an incumbent government.
In the longer term, the Libs could have Turnbull as leader, but here and now, there isn’t a single electable alternative to Howard. Costello is not popular, and anecdotal and polling evidence supports this notion.
Though the Federal Libs have shown pretty strong party unity over the past 10 years (as compared to their state counterparts, or Federal opposition, for that matter), they have their own competing agendas and splits to deal with. If the caucus thought Costello would win, and Howard lose, they would have backed Costello. Nonetheless, Costello did not have the numbers, and Howard was probably mistaken for some kind of miracle merchant after his previous election wins.
Bracks’ decision, sudden as it is, will at least leave his party with a reasonable chance of election success in 2010, with plenty of time to establish the new leaders’ credentials, and sort out factional squabbling before such things become costly.
An exciting day.
I think the Victorian stories and the Haneef story have consequences for the federal sphere. Haneef obviously. Surely, after this, Andrews has to resign. In the olden days when Westminster conventions meant something there would be no question. But even with the watered down version of ministerial responsibility we suffer with now surely he can’t stay on. Can he?
As for Bracks(y), he’s shown how to go out with some style. I think unflattering comparisons will be made with JWH. Peter C’s comments were interesting. Maybe he’s going to throw it in now as well.
Of course he won’t resign, not from this government. Name the last Howard minister who did resign?
No resignation over AWB. No resignation over Rau or Alvarez. No resignation over the Iraq ‘intelligence.’ Why would this be any different?
Not even Keelty will have to go, despite his unbelievably political involvement in this matter.
Westminster traditions of accountability are dead and gone in this country.
Patrick,
Wouldn’t it be great if we always had minority governments? That way the Parliament could actually hold ministers responsible, rather than relying on them to behave responsibly.
Pity we don’t have proportional representation in the lower House.
TG – although I agree that would in many ways be better (I like the German model), I think that it still strays from the real issue, which is that the party of the relevant minister should have the guts to hold him/her accountable.
Compare with (even) the USA, where there is a distinct possibility of some Republican senators supporting moves to investigate and charge Attorney-General Gonzales for perjury. Or the UK, where the Blair government had a constant battle to defend itself not from the Tories, but from it’s own MPs.
I like to think it’s about recognising the supremacy of Parliament over all, even the individual’s political party. But in Australia to do so is to “betray” your party – look at what Barnaby Joyce has had to endure for crossing the floor.
Abolish the whip, bane of Australian politics!
Yeah well at least Barnaby Joyce is able to cross the floor.
The Sainted ALP banishes members if they don’t conform to party doctrine.
Patrick if you formally abolish party whips, they’ll just have informal ones.
Why are political parties in Australia so disciplined? Well it might be the fact that unless you have preselection from a major party, it’s very difficult to actually get into Parliament. And once you’re in, if you piss off the party too much you can lose your preselection, and hence your seat.
Ergo, the party is all.
I think PR in the lower House would make it easier for minor parties and independents to get elected, and hence loosen the grip of the major parties to a large extent.
Adelaide Advertiser polls today showing Labor leading 57-43 in Kingston and 58-42 in Wakefield are pretty devastating for the Coalition, as they were in January. But why these two seats?
Wonder why the Tiser hasn’t polled the slightly more contentious “marginal” seat, Makin, or even Boothby and Sturt? Now it seems Mayo and perhaps Grey are on the radar screen. They’d be more interesting.
Today’s poll results, incidentally, are buried on Page 9
It’s hardly a partisan issue. The ALP is disgraceful when it comes to “unity”, but then so are the Libs – look at Georgiou and Brandis, who both spoke out on key issues and both copped endless abuse for it too.
Until we, the punters, start demanding better from both sides of politics, however, it will remain a silly left v right slanging match.
Unquestionably right.
However, that doesn’t explain the US, for instance, where again party is all in terms of getting in to parliament. One thing that strikes me as different is the wide variation across the USA – a north-eastern Republican actually has to be further to the left than a southern Democrats on many issues.
Australia is far more homogenous though – punters across the land are relatively similar (although the emerging WA differentiation is fascinating to watch).
So, my point is that in a country like this it’s much easier to demand total consistency from members of a particular party, whereas in the US parties would not be able to sustain that level of rigidity across the very varied spectrum of electorates.
Patrick I note that in the US major Party members seem less reluctant to cross the floor. But could that not be because they have a different political system? Legislature and the executive are separate over there. Congress != Parliament.
sondeo Says:
July 27th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
“I do not know the margin of error for a small sample such as this.”
It’s about 4%, sondeo.
4% margine means the real TPP could be 63/37
Back to the theme park, 59/41 is bad news again for the Coalition and The Advertiser’s findings on Kingston and Wakefeild confirm the trend .
I wonder when was the last time this kind of poll dominance was present six (now its only 4) months out from an election and with such devastating relative consistency? I imagine this is not unprecedented, but I don’t know enough about Australian election or polling history to explore this notion.
STROP, the ALP is in a better position than any opposition party since Newspoll began polling in 1985. Nielsen was polling back in the 70’s and Morgan from the 1960’s but alas none of it is publicly available.
I did some work on the comparisons of 2007 to 2001 and 1996, a couple of weeks ago, have a look here.
http://www.ozelection2007.info/forums/viewtopic.php?id=94
Here’s a comparison to 1993.
http://www.ozelection2007.info/forums/viewtopic.php?id=100
Yeah, but it could also be 55-45. Considering 59-41 puts it amongst the most pro-Labor poll results we’ve gotten this year, I’d bet that any error is more likely to be reduce the margin, rather than increase it.
Thank you once again Aristotle. Your knowledge and efforts are one of the reasons I come to this site.
Thanks for your kind comments, Strop.
I was joking the other day about the Labor party getting a ‘fake’ poll done showing 60/40 just to watch the Liberal party response, see if they self destruct. Well if the ACNeilsen shows a 59/41 there will be panic at the station. A few more polls like this….?
Is Costello contemplating retirement? I don’t think he would making life hard for Howard if the race is already lost.
“Federal Treasurer Peter Costello says he sympathises with Premier Steve Bracks’ decision to step down, saying politics is very hard on families.”
I can’t resist a cartographic challenge – a Kingston polling place map:
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/2007seats/kingston.shtml
These maps take about two hours each so I won’t be doing 150 of them, but I will do the key marginals.
[These maps take about two hours each so I won’t be doing 150 of them, but I will do the key marginals.]
Have you done Sturt?
What if I donate $7.50 to the site, what’s it worth to you? 😛
My website is not influenced by monetary considerations – not by $7.50 anyway. I will do the 16 most marginal Coalition seats first, then other marginals.
By the way these maps are made possible by the new version of Google Earth, whose street-search facility is just awesome.
anybody see Rod Cameron on Lateline – voice of reason for all of you planning on Labor Victory parties come November.
[anybody see Rod Cameron on Lateline – voice of reason for all of you planning on Labor Victory parties come November.]
What did he have to say?
The sample of this poll is so small as to deem it totally and utterly useless crap.
Michael Kroger on Late Line thinks the Govt will be returned [surprise surprise] he also reckons Libs (Tollner) will be returned in the NT.
I am here in the NT and I doubt it very much. He has not performed very well and comes over as a bit of dimwit and oaf [he claimed his fingers were all over WorkChoices – bad move]. His replacement Damien is not well known to me but is to the footy crowd. A Western Bulldogs player did him a favor by punching him, in bar, as he stood up for the honour of a woman – that got him on TV and some sort of recognition. I believe he will win.
Rod Cameron said that Rudd was single mindedly avoiding Howard’s wedges and nominated the Haneef affair as another Howard wedge. He said it wasnt me-too-ism but just clever play wanting to appear the safe option. He reckons the greater policy differences will come out later.
He has Labor down as 50/50 for the election.
Kroger of course was pretty much opposite to Cameron.
I believe this Haneef affair has been a disaster for Howard as it really highlights the way this government works and plays games. It keeps this clever politician and trust issue prominent in peoples minds.
The more he wedges the more he is exposed to the public. You can bet the Police are desperately looking for something to justify Howard’s/Andrews attack on Haneef.
Cameron came across as quietly confident to me. His demeaner belied some of what he said. This idea by Kroger that the electorate is bored with Howard is BS. If they were bored the swing would not be as big. When was the last time people were showing such boredom with a government they punished it? Wouldn’t they just blindly vote it back in?
This Haneef business is crazy. If he hasn’t been charged with anything, then surely he should get his visa returned. I doubt he wants to stay here anymore, but I can’t understand how the government can start revoking visas even if someone hasn’t done anything wrong. Who would want to come and work here if a visa could be lost just because the minister feels like using those powers?
I say this as someone who hates conspiracy theories. I think that our law inforcement organisations do an excellent job. But when they could screw up a case like this so badly, then it makes people question the entire system.
Well, just because the DPP has dropped the specific charge against Haneef, that doesn’t mean that the AFP have not come with information on him that might make him an undesirable person to have in our midst. While I think the government have made a thorough botch of this, out of a desperate desire to find a wedge against Rudd, that does not mean that Haneef is necessarily totally innocent. The problem is that the government can’t release the AFP’s report, but their credibility is now so low that no-one will take their word for it that Haneef should be deported. It’s a dilemma of their own making, but it is a real dilemma nonetheless.
Simon, Haneef’s visa was canceled because he failed “the character test”. I don’t know precisely what this “character test” is, but it’s very easy to fail. Even the Federal judge in the appeal said he would fail it.
That’s how they can cancel his visa, even though he’s done nothing wrong.
I think at least one of our law enforcement agencies has done an absolute crap job. Either they were extremely incompetent, or they were influenced by politics. Either way, they were extremely incompetent.
Cast your mind back to circa 2004 when Keelty accidentally said to Laurie Oakes that our involvement in Iraq had made us more of a terrorist target. It didn’t take much for the Howard government to make him back pedal.
From this we can deduce that (1) he is very easily bullied by the government, and (2) though he is capable of the occasional moment of honesty, it is only by accident. I think these are the sort of qualifications that get you appointed head of the AFP under this government. He is quite obviously, a politically useful hack.
What does “undesirable person” mean? To me it is someone who breaks laws. I don’t think “cousin is currently being tried in a different country for being a terrorist” counts. That would be guilt by association, which contradicts the presumption of innocence. The Federal DPP has said they don’t have evidence that he has broken any laws, hence the case was dropped. If they still have something on him, then why don’t we know about that?
If Kevin Andrews thinks there is still reason why he shouldn’t have his visa, then he should hold a press conference and spell out the case, instead of this “I received advice from my deparment” crap that he keeps hiding behind.
[The problem is that the government can’t release the AFP’s report]
Why can’t they release the report? There needs to be more transperancy in this process, especially when the police are invoking powers from the anti-terrorism legislation, such as detaining suspects without charge.
I feel that laws of that sort can be justified in extreme circumstances, because they may make it possible to save lives. However, when they are used surely it means there should be even more checks and balances in place to ensure the powers aren’t abused, or as in this situation, used for a frivolous case. To me that means making available police reports and interviews to defence lawyers and the media, rather than relying on brave lawyers and AFP leaks to acheive the same result.
I guess this is the character test in question:
[The character test
A person will fail the character test where:
they have a substantial criminal record
they have, or have had, an association with an individual, group or organisation suspected of having been, or being, involved in criminal conduct
having regard to the person’s past and present criminal conduct, the person is found not to be of good character
having regard to the person’s past and present general conduct, the person is found to be not of good character
there is a significant risk that the person will engage in criminal conduct in Australia, harass, molest, intimidate or stalk another person in Australia, vilify a segment of the Australian community, or incite discord in the Australian community or in a segment of that community, or represent a danger to the Australian community or a segment of that community.]
So in other words, these things are so broad that the minister can revoke a visa whenever they feel like it simply by suspecting that someone may hypothetically commit a crime sometime in the future. Since no one can predict the future, this means the minister can do as they wish.
OK, that’s fine, but I just want Kevin Andrews to admit it… ;-P
Would now be a good time for Rudd to go for Howard’s jugular over Haneef? Or would that be too obvious an act of political sleaze?
That Guy Says:
July 28th, 2007 at 1:10 am
Would now be a good time for Rudd to go for Howard’s jugular over Haneef? Or would that be too obvious an act of political sleaze?
If I were Rudd I would leave it alone- let the voters make up their own minds about the issue-they will let JWH know how they feel about it at election time.
The Immigration Minister tried to bait Rudd on in some time ago, he didnt take the bait for good reason- some might not like an Opposition leader sticking the boot into the incumbent Government on ‘security’ issues, regardless of the wrong or right of how it was handled- it smacks of disloyalty to patriotic values.
“STROP Says:
July 28th, 2007 at 1:35 am
If I were Rudd I would leave it alone- let the voters make up their own minds about the issue-they will let JWH know how they feel about it at election time.”
As Rod Cameron said on Lateline Friday,Mr Rudd is not going to be wedged by the Coalition.He is playing a very smart game.The government is doing a good job of stuffing things up of their own accord.The AFP are furious with Andrew’s actions over the cancellation of Dr Haneefs visa.Story is here:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22147243-601,00.html
Now the blame game begins.
If nothing else it spells the end for Kevin Andrews- Howard was visibly livid when asked about it on his (run away its your birthday) visit overseas. Happy Birthday Prime Minister- did you get any ‘gifts’ >? NO.
East Timor Times
Friday July 27th INTERVIEW WITH MASTER HOWARD
Journalist: “Good morning Master Howard. Can we begin with..”
Howard: “That is a matter for my colleagues and the revelant Minister and/or State colleagues”.
Journalist:..asking if you got any presents for your birthday ? ”
Howard: “That is a matter for my colleagues and the revelant Minister and/or State colleagues”.
Journalist: Ok, I will take that as a no. Can we move on to why you chose to visit East Timor on your birthday?
Howard: “That is a matter for my colleagues and the revelant Minister and/or State colleagues”.
Journalist: Mr Howard, even here in East Timor we are getting indications of a Labor victory in the polls which have been pretty consistent since Kevin Rudd became leader of the Opposition. Who will win the 2007 Federal Election ?
Howard: “That is a matter for my colleagues and the revelant Minister and/or State colleagues”.
Journalist: Oh, I see. The electorate don’t have a say in who wins Government in Australia any more ?
Howard: What ? I am not going to respond to questions based on idle speculation. What is your source ?
Journalist: That is a matter for your colleagues (Santori, Laming, Vasta, Hardgrave, Abbott, Costello, Andrews) and the relevant Minister and/or State colleagues”
The market meltdown will not do the Coalition any good.
Some optimistic bulls are still saying it’s a minor correction in a bull market.
Realists are saying that it will put an end to the private equiteers rampaging around the world with their leveraged buyouts. This will bring the price of potential targets tumbling.
There is already the beginnings of a credit squeeze and higher rates by banks exposed to CDOs.
Imagine this, the loss in the Australian share market is already equivalent
to over $5,000 per Australian family. It is likely to get to $10,000 or more before it bottoms.
This will make life more difficult for small investors, especially those who have borrowed to buy shares, as many have.
The total loss on the US market is around five hundred billion so far which is five times the total immediate risk from loss on the sub prime mortgage market.
The market is irrational and based on sentiment and greed. It can turn for reasons not connected to fundamentals. Plus there’s a heck of a lot of money to be made by short selling on a bear market for those with the constitution to cope with it.
With Australian families losing capital on their share investments and with interest rates going up, probably on August 7th, the economic situation will look gloomy for the next election.
John Howard must at this time be wishing he had handed over his leadership a year ago.
The Morgan poll was probably about right at that point in time. The Greens vote is certain to go up after the forest policy statement and with the support of the pulp mill by Kevin Rudd.
Another couple of opinion polls will tell us. I think Rod Cameron was being disingenuous with his comments of 50:50
There’s a new Labor tv ad running in Queensland with Kevin Rudd talking about education..