The Fairfax papers today carry their monthly ACNielsen poll, which shows a narrowing of Labor’s two-party lead from 58-42 to 55-45. Labor’s primary vote is down from 49 per cent to 46 per cent, while the Coalition is up from 39 per cent to 41 per cent. The movement most likely represents a correction from a somewhat excessive result last time. Now please, for the love of Christ, no more polls until next Tuesday …
Martin J
I was being conservative 🙂
NSW + 11
VIC no change
QLD + 10
SA + 5
WA -2
Of course you could probably add TAS + 2
Given that this time last election the Govt. was leading 42-39 on primary vote (ACN 13-15 Aug) it shows they are much farther behind.
I’m a Liberal who knew????????
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=595ec3e5aade261a11c596120a1f75ee
That’s because you have to problem torturing kittens. If you pick that option, you come out liberal.
sigh… spelling errors in sarcasm never sound right.
74
Martin B Says:
August 13th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
“Nor, as has been oft-reminded but apparently needs to be more-oft-reminded can one estimate a reliable trend starting from a single poll. As long as everyone insists on starting their trends from the always-unbelievable 60-40 poll then we will be seeing a trend towards the government all the way to the election because the ALP will never reach those heights again. But it will continue to be an exercise in figure massage.”
Martin, you have just given me an interesting exercise to undertake with “Bryan’s” trend line graphs.
I would assume that from my memory of them, that the “Trend Line” would then drop and “Flat Line”. They would not look very good to the Coalition supporters as it would indicate clearly that the vote is locked in and unlikely to move.
Any movement to give a semblance of hope then would have to exceed possibly two percent movement to the Libs which would be virtually impossible I believe.
I hope no WA Libs are drafted in to help Howard out if this is their level of political strategy.
“Federal Education Minister Julie Bishop has categorically ruled out a move into State politics to help boost the Liberal Party which is suffering historically low levels of support under the leadership of Paul Omodei.
Ms Bishop yesterday snubbed recent calls from a senior member of the Liberal Party for her to take over the leadership reins six years after a similar plan was hatched by former premier Richard Court. ”
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=8876
Huh – can someone explain what my score means – I’ve got Liberal, Labor and Democrats close to each other:
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=6088065dd4d6cdf4e5c577bc200c362b
Btw, ruawake, you can probably add +1 for NT as well
[that political outlook test on Ozpolitics puts me down as a Nationals voter, and I’ve never voted for the Nationals in my life!]
I wonder why it said you were a National. A preference for more centrist / protectionist economic policies perhaps?
Which electorate do you live in. You don’t have to say if you don’t want.
It said I am a Democrat, I have voted Democrat once, in 1998. But that was essentially strategic, because the Democrat had a greater chance of winning the seat (Mayo) than the ALP candidate.
Now I’m in Sturt, which is home of the 40 year old (today) Lord Warden of the Aged. Curiously his campaign office is now in the seat of Adelaide.
[Huh – can someone explain what my score means – I’ve got Liberal, Labor and Democrats]
I think it means you’d either be on the left wing of the Liberal party, or right wing of the Labor party. Your liberal position on traditional values is skewing the free market positions on economic policies. So you are essentially a libertarian, you think government should stay out of people’s affairs be they economic or social.
(No, I’m not trying to start an argument, just trying to decode what it means)
Just a poke in the psephological dark: its strikes me that while part of the “soft vote” thesis has merit (ie that campaigns shift swinging voters) it seems to be travelling in the MSM with a corollary thesis with rather less evidence (that it will trend towards median, narrowing the gap).
My take is that we have a pretty solid range of primary vote support over a long period of time now, and its basically putting ALP primary between a 44 base and 49 high; LNP between a 39 base and 42 high.
My point is not that this will be cast in bronze in an election camapign – it may shift outside the range – but rather this: there’s no inherent reason to suspect that the campaign will shift the floating voters towards the coalition. A good campaign from Rudd may indeed shift LNP primary back to its fairly unshiftable base – which seems to be 39.
And 2nd: the coalition really needs to outperform the ALP now. If the ALP “unshiftable” primary is 44% – the coalition has a very narrow margin of error with the “swingers”. They’ll have to convert the overwhelming majority. eg Can they let it get as high as 45 and still have buckleys??
To be fair to Bryan he does mention that his starting point is arbitrary and questionable. However I don’t think all of the commentators that use those graphs pick up on the significance of that.
I did a quick analysis a little while ago, but it wasn’t super-rigorous so I’d be interested to see what you do. From memory if you do a linear regression from anytime before March or after March, then the “trend to the government” basically disappears.
Fact is the Libs need to have a primary vote equal and more likely above that of Labors to win the election…they are on 41% and ALP are on 46% thus the Libs still need to make up 3% primary vote to get ahead of Labor unless they can do this they’ll lose…nevertheless many national polls downgrade the National Party vote or just combine it into a Coalition vote thus the Nats who i believe will poll at 6% during the election would require the Libs to have a primary vote close to 40% needed to win…
Apparently, according to the poll thingy, I’m Green, Dem, Labor … er, not right. Bit of fun, though.
Yes, if the 44/56 result was translated to every seat then the government would win a landslide 15 seats in WA!
This also could be another one of those mistakes made in writing up the final results. We saw this in a previous poll which took 24 hours or so to be corrected ie they may have inadvertantly reversed the WA figures.
This would make the overall figures look more realistic.
I agree with Lefty E’s observations. The government has two problems, their primary vote is stuck around 40, and they aren’t getting a strong flow of preferences. They need to fix two problems, they need another 5% on the primary vote, and they need a majority of the preferences to make the election line ball. I just can’t see them solving both problems, especially in an election where environmental issues will be more important than at any election since 1990.
Environmental issues alone may add an extra 1 percent on the green reps and senate vote compared to 2004, and thus make it more likely that preferences flow more strongly to Labor than to the government.
In the previous thread some people toyed with the idea that one of the government’s strategies could be to become more green than the ALP. If their primary vote doesn’t move over the next four weeks, then maybe a preference heavy strategy like Labor’s in 1990 is their best chance of creeping home.
Maybe this is where Family First comes in, because the government could expect a majority of FF’s preferences. But surprisingly in some electorates in S.A. Labor gets as much as 40 or 45% of FF preferences. So again, that would leak votes away from the government.
I hate Family First…just as im sure the supporters ALP hates the Greens…
For one simple reason…they TAKE OUR VOTES!!!!!!!
Truth be told the minor parties generally do better than in the national polls and if Labor’s primary lead is made up from Greens who might go back to them come election day Labor’s primary lead may well be inflated…
Simon Howson Says: So you are essentially a libertarian, you think government should stay out of people’s affairs be they economic or social.
… unless you’re a liberal/national party supporter, in which case you believe that if you come from a muslim background, the government should dictate whether you can, or can’t, live in this country.
[Truth be told the minor parties generally do better than in the national polls and if Labor’s primary lead is made up from Greens who might go back to them come election day Labor’s primary lead may well be inflated…]
You’re forgetting that 75 – 80% of Green’s preferences go to the ALP.
Also Possum has shown that what the ALP has acheived under Rudd is getting Liberal first preferences votes to shift to minor parties, but then into Labor first preference votes. See here:
http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/for-whom-the-inertia-tolls/
This makes it very difficult for the government to get them back once people have decided to switch over to a different major party. Usually that sort of change takes time, the government needs the change of the last 2.5 years be reversed in the space of 2 or 3 months.
This is why people are starting to feel that only a major screw up on Rudd’s party, or a catastrophy of some sort can save the government.
Actually Pi it was Malcolm Fraser a ‘Liberal’ who let in the majority of Australia’s muslims from Lebanon…but i dont see a problem in deciding whether people would be best able to assimilate into our community as a precursor as to whether they are granted citizenship…
Japan’s immigration policy is Japan for the Japanese yet nobody calls them racist…apparently its ok to lump western countries with the bottom of the barrel of global society…Pi think of the Dutch because eventually they’ll be more Muslim Dutch than anlgo-celtic Dutch people…that is sad!
[… unless you’re a liberal/national party supporter, in which case you believe that if you come from a muslim background, the government should dictate whether you can, or can’t, live in this country.]
The current government isn’t very libertarian, they are pragmatic and opportunistic. It only takes a marginal seat in Tasmania to turn Howard into a socialist!
When they do try to turn ideology directly into policy they run the risk of losing the elections, e.g. 1998 and now. My guess is this is because the Liberal party doesn’t really debate their philosophy, they are essentially a loose coalition of anti-unionists. This means they have libertarians, conservatives, and liberals (in the U.S. sense). The fact they are in coalition with the National is funny, because most Nationals are far more protectionist and interventionist than Liberals.
Are there any self confessed Libertarians in the Federal parliament?
That’s why the Nats should join the Liberal Party formally….
Didn’t Rudd say that he would adopt “Family Impact Statements” at the recent God Summit?
If I remember correctly that may equate to more FF preferences flowing to the ALP.
Last election John Howard said he would do the same but didn’t.
[If I remember correctly that may equate to more FF preferences flowing to the ALP.]
If the S.A. elections are anything to go by, FF preferences seem to vary a great deal at different electorates. In some electorates it is close to 50/50 split, whereas in others the flows are far more (70 – 80%)towards the Liberal candidate. Perhaps it depends on if the Liberal and Labor candidates are themselves religious , church goers, or have vocal opinions on issues such as abortion, euthenasia etc?
Personally I hope those topics always remain conscience issues, and that we don’t have candidates attacking each other over things like abortion and gay marriage. I envy the U.S. participatory democracy, but that sort of campaigning is something we don’t need to import.
Well Labor did help elect Fielding in 2004…
Still they are uber conservative…something Rudd would leave alone if he doesnt want to find a knife in his back from Dullard.
Simon says: This is why people are starting to feel that only a major screw up on Rudd’s part, or a catastrophy of some sort can save the government.
Spot on Simon. There’s also the matter of baggage. Australian voters have long memories and it all adds up. Something Howard did maybe five years ago will suddenly ping and the mood changes. Multiply that over the country …
Howard has tried to manufacture scares, but it has not worked. Voters are simply tired of him and see him for what he is: a politician desperately clinging to power.
With the reserve bank predicting inflation will be 3% for the year, does this mean November 3rd or December 1st have firmed as likely election dates? There are interest rate announcements due on the 7th of November, and 5th of December. So my guess is the government wouldn’t want the election on the Saturdays of those two weeks.
QLD: ALP: 57, COAL: 43. So much for the ‘amalgamation’ issue doing serious damage.
This stat supports my contention that Labor will gain 5-8 seats (conservatively) in QLD with Petrie, Flynn and Hinkler the only ones the ALP will kick Beattie around the head over if they only (?) gain 5 (Moreton, Bonner, Blair, Herbert,Longman).
If this 57-43 ACNeilsen result is repeated in a months time you can write off any seats under the 10 % 2PP margin for the Coalition. 57-43 puts other seats in the frame, though I think 55-45 is more realistic come election day, improving Labor’s QLD 2PP signifantly from 2004. Once a Queenslander makes up their mind (aka P. Beattie) its all over.
Fear not Labor ites, Qld will deliver this time, improving Labor’s seat stocks from a paltry 6 out of 28 seats to somewhere between 14-17 from 29. Note my caveat : IF ACNeilsen repeats the dose next time.
But people polled by AC expect Interest Rates to be the same if not higher under Labor so are the rises so bad the government or do they spark fear as to handing over the economy to the inexperienced Krudd and Goose..
November 3rd must be firming as the election date…
Glen I agree Nov 3rd. I think the CPI figures are out around the 24th Oct, so it will be before the RBA can meet.
PS, why use Krudd and Goose it demeans you. 😉
As Steven Kaye might say, The Reserve Bank is full of beurocrats who don’t know anything and these figures are only a survey. Add 2% to those figures and the true inflation rate is at leat 5%. Subtract this from Labor’s lead and we have the true state of the nation.
A brilliant tactical move will be for Howard to abolish Saturdays so there can’t be an election. Time is an area that is just aching for reform. Afterall the last time any alterations were made was hundreds of years ago.
Thanks to Liberal Government productivity gains it is much more efficient to have fewer days in the week.
170, Simon– I think the closest we have is the Liberal tax reform group, who I wish would hurry up and start making their proposals realistic.
Well Rudd and Swan demean themselves everyday when they display their incompetence and utter lack of experience required to govern a 1 trillion dollar economy…
Would you want an officer in your platoon who had 11 years combat experience or less than 10 months experience…i know who id trust and that’s why Rudd will lose in 07 but win in 10 if he’s still around…
Fire Maker Says:
August 13th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
I’m not sure that holding Government with the help of an independent would be a huge problem it would be better than losing by 2 – 3 seats.
The Bracks goverment did it with 2 independents in 99. The Liberals were in disarray and he won in 2002 with a huge majority, 58 – 59% of the vote.
Also, Peter Beattie in Queeensland in 1998/99 gained Government with the help of Independent Peter Wellington and also gained a substantial majority in the following election.
Glen, is their any danger that you can rely on facts to strengthen your case rather than childish name calling, which actually reflects badly on you and your case?
Glen very true, but if that officer was in the job for a day or a week you would still call him sir.
It is respect for the office, not the man or woman. You make valid arguments but tend to be ignored because of a lack of respect for the office. Give both sides of politics credit – it is tough to get to the top in either party.
Yes but you would have no confidence in his ability to lead as he does not have a combat record…
I agree with you ruawake and i could not use the inexperience with Kim Beazley but Rudd is inexperienced and he is not ready to be our PM…i believe he would do a better job as PM if he was Opposition leader for 3-4 years having fought a close election and then becoming PM…in life nothing comes easy and so it should for the office of Prime Minister…it was hard for Howard it should be hard for Rudd…Im not saying he wouldnt be a good PM down the track but now and with the inexperienced team he leads that is something Australia could do without…
cant be november 3rd im getting married that day.new wife wont be happy if im watching election results out of the corner of my eye.
Well, I did the quiz and it showed me primarily as a Dem (84.9). Never voted for them as far as I can remember, but have long admired some of their leaders Janine Haynes, Cheryl Kernot, Andrew Bartlett. Also scored high for Greens and ALP. Be going for Labor this time. If Cerdic wants a reason: it’s because Rudd’s a credible leader that isn’t John Howard. Worked in 96.
Glen, I wouldn’t place too much faith in a better distribution of preferences for the Libs. It may even occur on a very small basis. But the primary is the big problem. Even if we assume as Grattan did that this offers a glimmer of hope, a 46-41 primary will still sink Howard.
True if Howard is going to win he’ll have to overtake Labor on primaries…
It’s off-topic for this forum, and I really shouldn’t, but I’m a weak man.
1. ‘Anglo Celtic’ is not an opposite category to ‘Muslim’; there are many Anglo-Celtic Muslims.
2. The predominant ethnic group in the Netherlands is Germanic; neither Anglo nor Celtic.
3. Even bearing in mind what I think you mean the substantive statement is simply not true for the forseeable future.
Three significant errors in one statement; you really ought to cut down.
I suppose there is some merit to the experience thing: look at the mess Howard made of the Treasury when Fraser catapulted him into the job after just three years in parliament!
OTOH, I don’t think voters take it much into account.
For those who want to know how the Family First vote splits when undirected by HTV’s you can look back through the Morgan stats. on this.
But I can save you the trouble.
Although the sample size at each individual poll is small, which leads to erratic results, when averaged over the current term it manages to split about 50/50 if you take out the Latham factor at the very beginning of the term. With Beasley it came down to just on the conservative side of 50% with a sharp dive since Rudd has taken over, with the last poll showing only 40% coalition support.
This is consistant with the analysis of the OzPolitics test results, which shows FFP voters with a relative broad span about the centre on socio-economic politics, with a defining right tendancy on traditional values.
As far as Family Impact Statements are concerned, one of the values FFP voters uphold is honesty, and they will penalise Howard for having lied to them on this issue. Who do you trust?… Probably Rudd will be given a chance now that he has made the same promise.
Glen Says:
” Rudd is inexperienced and he is not ready to be our PM…i believe he would do a better job as PM if he was Opposition leader for 3-4 years having fought a close election and then becoming PM…in life nothing comes easy and so it should for the office of Prime Minister…”
Glen, i heard that Mr Rudd intends to get a special phone put in if he wins office that will be a direct line to Paul Keating.
Just so he can run a few things by him if he ever gets any problems with all the inexperience that he is supposed to have.
Probably would have been a good idea for Mr Howard to keep in touch with Mr Fraser when he was first elected PM except Mr Fraser didn’t trust Howard and wouldn’t talk to him in any case.
whilst i am nearing poll and campaign fatigue, I find it interesting that most commentators and posters talk about the possibility of the vote narrowing in john howard’s favour. is it possible the gap may INCREASE. i get the sense that any votes still to change hands will go Labor’s way
Yes and look at the Mess Whitlam made and even he was opposition leader for more than a year and fought an election maybe Rudd would be even worse in 2010 lol!
I’ve been keeping a low profile since I tipped absolutley no rate increases in any of August September and October of 2007.
You probably shouldn’t listen to me anyway, I am only a kid’s entertainer on the ABC with a wierd nose and a fixation on Miss Jane..
However, I wouldn’t mind a peak at the AC neilson’s results, but can’t find the offical stats anywhere. All I can find is the qualitative comments on the fairfax site.
Basically, I don’t like being told what to think by other people’s intepreations of polling. Does anyone know were to find the original numbers?
I just did the quiz and came out as a Green. And that’s pretty much bang on the money for me.
Regarding the finding about interest rates in today’s AC Nielsen:
49% believe rates would be the same under Labor
31% believe rates would be higher under Labor
7% believe rates would be lower under Labor
The interesting part about these findings is that only 31% of people have actually swallowed Howard’s cods wallop on interest rates. Clearly, 69% of people did not align themselves with the “Interest rates will always be lower under a coalition government than a Labor government” mantra that Howard and Costello bang on about night and day.
My guess is that 31% are the hardcore, rusted on Liberal Party voters, like Cerdic, Glen, and Steven Kaye, who believe anything that Howard tells them to believe and would never contemplate voting Labor no matter how incompetent or destructive the Liberals become.
In other words, thankfully, the greater majority of Australians have some common sense about them and realise that a government doesn’t have the kind of control over interest rates that Howard was deceptively suggesting during the 2004 election.
Trying to blame the states on interest rate rises or trying to suggest that they will go through the roof with a Labor win may therefore not be the powerful vote-changing message that Howard was hoping for.
On that logic, once a party has been in government for a decade or so, it must stay in government forever, because the opposition has no experience of government. I’m sure Glen applies this principle to the state Liberal parties as well? And to the British Tories? And the NZ Nationals?
Scorpio Howard didnt need a mentor because he already had enough experience to run the country too bad i cant say the same of Rudd he’d just let the ACTU tell him what to do…
It would be stimulating to have an intelligent Liberal contribute to this blog once in a while. Does anyone know any? All we seem to get are complete fools whose “arguments” are just abuse and sarcasm which wouldn’t convince a three year old. Yes Glen that means you.