The ABC reportedly reports that tomorrow’s Westpoll will show federal Labor has shot to a 54-46 lead in Western Australia, the one state believed to have been holding out against the tide. It should be noted that Westpoll is widely criticised for its small samples, usually 400 respondents. How The West Australian managed to get scooped by the ABC on its own poll results is yet to be explained.
UPDATE: News reports that Westpoll has the Labor primary vote at 43 per cent, up from 36 per cent last month, with the Coalition down from 46 per cent to 38 per cent.
UPDATE 2: Westpoll also conducted a state poll from the same sample, which gives us a chance to assess how roguish this poll is. Answer: very. While it is clear that the Carpenter government has the measure of the opposition under its current leadership, it’s hard to credit the spasm shown in the table below. It would thus be wise to add a 5 per cent discount to the vote recorded for Labor in the federal poll.
| ALP | LNP | 2PP | |
| May | 39 | 39 | 51.2 |
| Apr | 41 | 38 | 54.5 |
| Jun | 42 | 40 | 52.3 | Aug | 48 | 30 | 62.0 |
Note: The Coalition vote shown for today’s poll assumes a 3 per cent vote for the Nationals, which is an educated guess that might be out by 1 per cent either way. The West Australian has mischievously declined to include this information so it can show a “Liberal” primary vote with a 2 in front of it.
Coota – is that figure from the West today? I can’t imagine a 62-38 split. WA just doesn’t seem to have those sorts of figures. No matter how popular or unpopular one side of politics is, 52-48 is almost landslide in WA terms.
The aggregated Newspoll showed 54-46. That was enough to spook Omodei. But 62-48 would spook Troy Buswell too – why take over if you could even lose your seat!
Still can’t get over 62-38.
That would mean 51 ALP 3 Libs, 3 Nats and 2 independents.
Lefty says: “Its more like a nausea. People are just sick of the sight of him, over his endless dissembling, and bored stiff looking at the old coot. Given this – he’s running the worst possible campaign he could: Dragging out his annoying whining mug saturations style, 24/7, over the longest campaign in living memory, yapping on endlessly in, and outside his brief as PM.”
Leaving aside the polemical tone, I think Lefty is right. The electorate has had enough of Howard, and the more he puts himself out there (and what else can he do?) the more he reminds them of that. There is no way out of this bind except resignation.
To balance the comment: on Rudd, I agree that if Labor manages to lose from here, Rudd will be finished, in the same way Hewson and L*th*m were finished. Modern messiahs only get one go at the miracle.
Howard’s election hopes lie in ruins
11th August 2007, 7:45 WST
West Australian voters, on whom John Howard was counting to save him from political oblivion, have turned their back on him, with an exclusive Westpoll revealing a surge of support for Kevin Rudd that would deliver Labor three seats in WA and virtually guarantee him electoral victory.
http://www.marketresearch.com.au/our_services__westpoll__current_month_questions.23.html
If politics is perception and some swinging voters follow the trends, even in WA, that quote (above) speaks volumes for JWH chances of getting some compensation in WA to offset seat losses in other States. Zero.
Howard has made the electorate nauseous since the mean-and-tricky days of 2001. 9/11 (and to a lesser extent Tampa) rescued him in 2001. L*th*m frightened the punters 2004, and Howard’s interest rate scare played to that fear.
For six years the electorate has been looking for a safe, boring, non-threatening alternative so they can kick out The Rodent, and Rudd is it. I think Rudd is playing it very well, and nothing short of a terrorist attack on home soil will save Howard now.
If Rudd does win the election, will people from the right be complaining about the sample size (what is it? about 10 or 12 million?), or will they declare the 2007 Federal Election result a rogue that should not to be taken seriously?
Someone has probably already answered this somewhere, but I was wondering if any of the psephs can tell us:
1) From past records, has anyone in the past turned around poll deficits of the magnitude Howard now faces (especially given what seems to be a lack of poll volatility)?
2) If they have turned figures like this around, over what period, and was there mitigating or unusual circumstances to the turnaround?
3) What, in the past, were the largest turnarounds during actual election campaigns?
Any info? Or can you refer me to this information somewhere?
Many thanks for this and all the interesting analysis on this site.
A terrorist attack won’t save the government. People would blame some of Australia’s foreign policy decisions for any attack, and that would rebound on the incumbent.
People will turn to a safe pair of hands in a crisis. Rudd is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be a safe pair of hands.
Howard’s main chance of winning is to tempt Rudd into making mistakes and cause people to doubt his capacity to be PM. In otherwords to needle, goad, bait and niggle.
But it is risky, the electorate is more sophisticated now and they may shy away from such a tactic. However the options are limited. The election is Rudd’s to lose.
re: Michael Proud #46
I used to live in Cowan up to this year (now in Eden-Monaro) and Graeme Edwards was an extremely popular local member. My family and friends all talked very highly of him. I think they only managed to hold the seat at the last election because he stayed. If you look at the booth by booths it’s a bit worrying that they weren’t polling so well in the working areas (eg. Balga, Girrawheen etc.).
Also, there are a lot of newly developing ‘aspirational’ areas in the seat. I think it could be another close one this election.
re: Hoots #57
Howard mentioned in numerous circles this week that the Hewson/Keating election in ’93 had the primaries for Coalition/ALP at 48/39 just before the election was called and the ALP still won.
I’m not sure of the veracity of those claims though. You can never trust something Howard says on face value after all and have to look a bit deeper!
Last response… I think
re: SirEggo #43
My consensus from talking with the politically unaware is that everyone is sick of politics dominating the news. The feeling of hysteria being whipped up every day and the constant tactics and scandals appearing wears thin. Even politically minded people such as myself are sick of it.
And in response to your statements about long election campaigns hurting the Government… I think this point has been made on a few occasions. Such long election campaigns put a lot more of a spotlight on the Opposition Leader and runs the risk that people will respond positively to them. Evidence of this is given of the first election post Hawke’s win, where he held an extremely long campaign which saw Andrew Peacock (I think?) come from miles behind to give a scare to the ALP.
Pondie84 – I agree – I used to be in Perth (the north western Dianella end) and now in Grayndler, but he was always popular even when an MLC. That personal vote could prove crucial if the vote is tight. But I think it will not be as tight as previously thought.
Gaynor
As Adam would say “Most people wouldn’t ‘blame Howard for any attack’ – that’s the 10% “Left” view – the 90% would be happy to blame MGWB’s (Muslim Guys With Beards)”.
September 11 and the JFK assassination both helped to shore up incumbent governments. People don’t change hands when they are scared like that.
That’s what they did in 1972. Reg Withers called it “a temporary fit of madness in the eastern states.” They simply refused to accept the legitimacy of a Labor government, and the result was November 1975. This time they will be mad as hell at having their snouts pulled out of the trough, and they will play very dirty indeed. Their only remaining power base will be the Senate, and they will use it ruthlessly. All aboard for a DD in 2008.
Since the chances are about 99.999 that any terrorist attack in Australia will in fact be carried out by MGBs and not by John Howard, that would seem to be the correct response. The political question is whether Howard would get some kind of electoral boost from it, by saying “see I was right to be tough on the MGBs”, or whether he would be blamed for not preventing the attack despite all his tough talk.
People will also note that an attack occured on the incumbent’s watch. They will ask questions.
Why did it happen? Why didn’t the government stop it? What has the government done to make us less safe? Can the other guy be trusted to protect us?
The classic double edged sword.
Newspoll did have the coaltion ahead 48/39.5 a month before the 1993 election.
But Hewson lost because he was trying to introduce the GST. A very different kettle of fish now.
Pondie84 #60
Thanks for the reminder about Howard referencing the 93 election. I’ve just been looking over the reporting of Howard’s claim.
Newspoll in February 1993 did put the Coalition’s primary vote at 48 per cent and Labor’s at just 39.5 per cent, four weeks before John Hewson went on to lose the election. I’m scouting around now for the polls back then – I’m pretty sure someone has responded since that the 93 poll quoted by Howard was unusual in that the coalition had nothing like the steady polling Rudd now enjoys – and Hewson may have not been registering as preferred PM – I’ll see if I can find the references or polls to confirm this. (unless someone can point me to this info?)
The other element to this claim by Howard is that Rudd is almost diametrically opposed to the strategies of Hewson. Hewson believed the election was unloseable and took radical policies to the electorate, Rudd is very careful not to appear threatening or in any way radical.
Thanks again for the reference.
ruawake #67-
Sorry, your comment appeared while I was typing mine, making my comment about Hewson’s policies redundant.
That Newspoll result from ’93 is interesting though – it is a very big gap in PRIMARY voting intention figures. It at least reminds us that massive turnarounds are possible.
I can’t see that kind of turnaround happening now though – everything seems to suggest that Howard has outstayed his welcome. As others have noted, the more he speaks, the less people want to hear. And the whole crew are starting to look and act rattled.
And, again as many have pointed out, Rudd is playing a blinder, and people seem to be unconcerned about minor hiccups on the Labor side. The polls seem to be pretty stable in reflecting a majority of the electorate who want to get rid of Howard, probably driven by Workchoices (WorkYouSerfBastards) and a track record of deviousness and disingenuity.
“Newspoll did have the coaltion ahead 48/39.5 a month before the 1993 election.”
It is true that the coalition were well in front very close to the ’93 election, but the lead-up to that election in terms of polling was FAR more volatile than this year. For instance, 3 months out from the ’93 election, Labor were 49 and the coalition were 39 in primary vote. We are probably at the 3-month mark right now, and polls are still showing major support for Labor.
The remarkable thing about this year is the sheer consistency in the polls. Howard hasn’t come anywhere close to winning a single poll, whether it be Newspoll, ACNeilsen, Galaxy, or Morgan for almost 12 months. This lack of volatility, which was present in bucket loads in 1993, suggests that Labor’s election-winning support is rock solid. It will take a LOT to shift it. And I don’t think Howard can do it. He has a major credibility problem now – everything he says and does is (rightfully) viewed within a “desperate to win” perspective, where people expect Howard to have ulterior motives. And at the same time, a whole heap of people have tuned out – they are thoroughly SICK of him, me included.
Of course, WorkChoices, decieving the public over interest rates, and the plethora of other issues have already DONE THEIR DAMAGE. A lot of people feel betrayed over something and will not want to reward Howard or the Liberal Party with their vote. Howard can help soften the damage he has caused, but the blow has already been struck.
This man is going down, at long last. For 34 years, he has haunted Australian politics, and I think there will be a huge sigh of relief for many people when he has finally gone.
I may be a continent away, but isn’t 62-38 to WA ALP roguish, or at least at the outer margins of credibility? If so, so are the Westpoll federal figures.
Others here are speaking of foreign policy: now the PM has released a letter (to News Ltd?) to al-Maliki, the Iraqi PM, that was clearly written for Australian consumption: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22224976-601,00.html
And today Downer is out talking the contents up.
What is most curious is that having ‘sold’ the invasion as ‘doing the right thing in the face of public opinion’ the government is now citing ‘lack of public support’ as a trigger for withdrawing troops! And having parrotted the Bush administration on the issue, it is now adopting the Democrat (and increasingly Republican congressional) approach of ‘youse Iraqis shape up or we’re pulling out’.
Normally I wouldn’t ascribe base domestic motives to foreign policy decisions by either side. But in this case, the timing, tenor and talking up of this letter imply a strong eye to the election. But could the PM get away with a back-flip of this magnitude?
ps – for those who like to mock the Oz. Greg Sheridan’s report (URL in my last post), in the space of three short paras, spells the Iraqi PM as ‘Malaki’, ‘Maliki’ and ‘Malaki’ again. Of course Greg is the expert on Islamic politics and culture…
I thnk you’re right Noocat – do you have any concerns about the 16 seats needed?
Howard clearly intends bombarding the marginals with cash. So far, he seems to be doing it pretty desperately and unwisely – I suspect Mersey, Eden-Monaro logging Mill and Queensland pleboscites are actually negatives for him, adding to the air of desperation and making it less likely upcoming bribes will work.
Graeme,
I don’t think Iraq is a big vote-turning issue in and of itself. It has compounded the image of Howard as inept anhd out of touch, and pulling out now won’t help him reverse that. Maybe Rudd can accuse Howard of “me-tooism”, and point out that he (Rudd) is the one setting the agenda?
Sounds more like Howard malarkey to me.
Tom.
The other thing about Iraq is that a backflip will confirm Howard’s complete lack of scruples or principle. Anything to win the election.
I don’t think the changes to WorkChoices have done anything to defuse the issue, and again the backflip made the statements he had made about the legislation’s fairness for 12 months prior seem hollow.
Canning could be one of those interesting seats to watch on the night,
especially in view on the recent rise in interest rates. A map of the
electorate suggests that there would have been a large amount of
mortgages and new homes going up there over the last 3 years. After the 2004 election George Megalomaniac (sorry, always wanted to say that 🙂 ) published an interesting analysis showing a very strong correlation between pro-Liberal swings and the percentage of dwellings under mortgage in each electorate.
Combined with the ALP candidate problems from 2004 which would have artificially boosted Randall’s swing (on top of the general anti-Latham feeling throughout WA) this is one electorate that could bounce above the uniform 4-5% swing required. Hope it’s not seat #16 that the ALP are counting on though, and that everything is home and hosed by the time the closer WA seats are being counted! Randall is the archetypal pro-Howard drone (the WA version of Tassies’ Ferguson), and the memory of him attacking Latham in 2004 for not being a Christian still has me grinding my teeth. Watching him go down would be almost as satisfying as seeing Downer/Abbott et al having to eat crow.
For all interested parties here is the latest analysis of the national polls. In short, over one million voters have shifted to the ALP since the last election, and despite all the Government’s efforts, they haven’t shifted back.
http://www.ozelection2007.info/forums/viewtopic.php?id=212
Yes, and Rudd can say that when the opposition suggested leaving, that they were abused for cutting and running. So by the P.M.s own standards that is what he is now suggesting to do.
For fun and a smell of “no plan in the mourning”, read Christopher Pearson’s column in The Australian today. I cannot give a web address because, since the Australian “upgraded” its website, it has become inaccessible from this computer.
Hoots, the only concern is how the marginals play out, which is why Howard is “bombarding” them, as you put it. But at the same time, I’m sure Rudd is on top of the game, and some vigorous grassroots campaigning will be underway in those same seats. The ACTU has certainly been targeting the marginals for a long time now. And the state-by-state Newspoll we saw recently suggests that some big swings are taking place in the marginals.
This is why Howard is worried. And why the temptation of the Mersey Hospital was too great for him to resist, no matter how bad the policy was and regardless of how much damage it will do to the health system in neighbouring areas.
The problem for Howard is that he is searching for “get-rich-quick” schemes. All year he has been launching one personal attack on Rudd after the other and searching for big interventions, where he can create lots of headlines and possibly wedge or trap Labor, e.g., Aboriginal intervention, Haneef, QLD councils. He has spent months searching for something to bring about a SUDDEN change in the polls.
But this will be his downfall. Rudd was right when he said that Howard gave up governing this country a long time ago. It is now all about wining an election. But because Howard is searching for get-rich-quick schemes, he hasn’t stuck to any particular strategy or plan or policy framework long enough to actually see any real results. He deserted any kind of slow-and-steady-wins-the-race approach long ago. Now, whenever he fails to see a quick change in the polls from his latest scheme or trick, he dumps it and moves on in search of the next one.
Not only does this approach make him look even more desperate and erratic, it has also led to a failure to develop any proper, detailed, or good policy for this country and its future. There has been a lot of back-of-the-envelope policy as Howard rushes to make some headlines.
But because Howard has rushed about doing policy on the run, lots of things have backfired, which is now underscoring the impression that Howard is no longer fit to be PM – he has become the erratic, occasionally radical, politician that was Latham’s downfall.
I know plenty of hardened Liberal supporters who think that Howard has lost it. Some even wonder if he is going senile. These people are not especially tuned into politics, but as far as impressions go, Rudd seems stable and sensible while Howard seems desperate, nervous, and unpredictable. It’s not looking good for the old bloke. And it is all his own doing. Rudd has played only a minor role, simply by avoiding Howard’s traps and being a seemingly safe and reasonable guy.
The rest has been Howard’s tricks and ploys coming back to haunt him, as they should.
Howard has been rapidly losing the confidence of the people. And the people who want predictability, safety, and dependability the most are those who are up to their eyeballs in mortgages and other debt and who have families to feed, and these are the types of people who fill up many marginal seats all around the country.
Pearson’s article is hilarious! It can be summarised as follows: “If the election goes how I want it to go, then the government will be returned.”
I wish I got paid to write drivel like that.
I agree with Noocat. Howard’s popularity was based on the idea that he was slow and steady, and that he wouldn’t completely screw anything up. But now he has reverted to disorganised stunts, which is just ruining his credibility.
On the effect of a deadly terrorist attack on the electorate, any advantage gained by the government could easily disappear if the government is seen to be attempting to make hay out of it. Also there is likely to be issues with how the person(s) got into the country, how the emergency services and hospitals performed, etc. It would be a can of worms which nobody really wants opened.
Re WA
the point is that wa seems to be following the rest of Australia
in terms of the opinion polls .WA like Qld had a very poor ALP vote
last time. even assuming that the poll is wrong by 5% this still suggests
Alp wins in wa. If the 5 lost seats from 2004 were won back the task of Alp victory is much easier
This is Howard’s excuse for the Westpoll results:
“Prime Minister John Howard has attributed the latest poll showing a dip in coalition support in Western Australia as “volatility” created by the polling method.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pm-blames-poor-result-on-volatility/2007/08/11/1186530661328.html
I love it that our prime minister who doesn’t comment on polls frequently comments on polls.
Well Noocat, obviously their internal polls are suggesting something different.
What`s the title of the Pearson article Simon?
Yes… the internal polls have him being thought of as old and tricky. Perhaps the pollsters should ask that question?
Aristotle displays his genuis once again. Thank You. Fascinating reading.
One of the pleasures of not buying The Australian is not reading Christopher Pearson, one of the worst of the intellectuals of easy virtue who have hitched themselves to Howard’s bandwaggon. Not reading Janet Albrechtson is also a great pleasure.
try genius for genuis strop. Hate it when I click ‘submit comment’ and see a glaring typo which I can do nothing about as I wait for it to go into cyber space.
Thanks William for your comments on Westpoll. A Labor supporter would be smiling at the perception of that poll in the local rag over there. Still, winning the obvious H and S seats would be enough for me, Kal and Canning, bonus, but certainly not to be counted on for 16 + outcome: I hope it is all over before votes come across the rabbit fence (WA).
Not long ago I managed not to read Janet and Miranda Devine on the same day. Bliss.
…two different papers does dilute the pleasure somewhat though.
Honestly, can you Fairfax lovers stop using this website as a soapbox to blast non-socialist journalism? It really makes very boring reading.
Not the lack of socialism A-C, just the crapness.
So don’t read it then.
I was going to offer a summary of what the Australian has to say this weekend but I only got to the front page with Howard threatening the Iraqi Government with the withdrawal of Australian military support unless..
The thought that immediately came to mind was this. No matter what he does now, rightly or wrongly, is very vulnerable to being interpreted as an electoral stunt, another indicator of the man’s (public perception if not factual) desperate bid to retain Government.
Speculations such as those hinted at by other bloggers here, that the public have had enough of politics dominating the public agenda and/or that most have made up their minds already and are keen to get it over and done with, may be a contributing factor to the knee jerk (justified or not) reaction I felt immediately after reading JWH hint at a backflip on Iraq.
The danger for JWH, in my opinion, is that his credibility is shot and acknowledged by his own election strategists. That being the case, would be better off —
(A) not attempting to CHANGE his image among the punters (by backing down on Iraq, for example), its a bit late for that;
(B) Not reinforcing public cynicism about his motives and credibility by doing things that are very vulnerable to a cynical, critical interpretation as a ‘wedge’ or pork barrel production and are guareenteed to get mass media attention, if not carpeting. Recent examples would be the intervention in the NT, the hospital in Tassie, the Saw Mill in Eden Monaro and the Counci amalgamations in Qld.
(C) Going after the opposition leader- That is his problem at the moment, he can not get any mud to stick to Rudd so options (A) and (B) seem to be his only choices- if for no other reason than to be IN the paper rather than Rudd and to wrest back control of the political agenda.
While his bizarre behaviours, wedge attempts and pork barreling take up media attention, whatever Rudd is doing seems to have been lost to the background at the moment. yes ?
At least JWH won the media attention award for July -August …thats about all he can claim to have acheived – And if you think about it, it has smothered to an extent the consistent bad news polls as the subject to talk about – Gone loopy ? Lost the plot ? Desperate ? Think again. No, it won’t save him at the election come November. But he aint stupid.