The News Limited stable today brings us a poll from Galaxy, an outfit that has traditionally given the Coalition more cause for optimism than its rivals. Not this time though: after rising into the 40s in June and July, the Coalition primary vote is back down to 39 per cent, while Labor is up from 44 per cent to 47 per cent on last month. Labor’s 57-43 two-party lead likewise returns to the situation in May, and compares with 54-46 last month. Attitudinal questions find respondents more likely to attribute the budget surplus to high taxes than good management, and overwhelmingly inclined to think Rudd a “normal bloke” on account of the strip club incident. However, it appears that not all of the 1,004 interviews were conducted over the past weekend (note the bottom of the press release: “These surveys were conducted by Galaxy Research. The most recent survey was administered on the weekend of 24-26 August”). It therefore cannot be stated with confidence how timely these figures are, or whether the entire sample was in a position to pass judgment on the strip club affair or the budget surplus.
This is a really interesting idea. Has Howard’s desperate thrashing around for a wedge issue made things worse or at firmed up voting intension early?
Just listening to people talk about the election its hard to see what would cause a significant number of people to swap side (one way or the other). What Howard needs is some exogenous shock – but time is running out on that strategy – as it is on all other strategies.
Sideline Eye: “In contrast, Howard come across as whinging and disingenuous. Plus, I suspect like thousands of other people out there, I’m sick of him and just want him to go; the time for change factor.”
I liked your ‘nutshell’, especially the above comment. I think if I had to summarise the response of most voters to the PM in one word it would be ‘fatigue’. It’s not intense dislike (such as Keating faced), just ‘enough already’.
The polls do look good for Labor, but this is merely the phoney-war phase of an election campaign. It’s still a long way till polling day.
With Labor’s vote now confirmed in the 58-60% level, the Senate situation becomes more interesting. Has anyone done an analysis of what Labor needs to get control of the Upper House so they can dispose of this current Government’s WorkCoices legislation.
Its not just Kerry O’Brien its Michelle Grattan, Laurie Oakes, Alan Ramsey, Paul Bongiorno, Barrie Cassidy, Mark Riley, Michael Bressenden just about every single political journo on TV is a Labor voter or has worked for the ALP as a press secretary…
Just some quick thoughts…..
I think we can assume that “the drift back to the govt” has now stopped?
(It never existed)
I think we can probably assume that the position suggested by possum is probably not far off the mark.
(The Govt started losing support after 2005, has clawed some back at times only to lose increasing numbers, IMHO due to percieved declining living standards and the feeling that they’ve been there long enough)
I think we can anticipate a Howard concession speech at around 9:45pm on election night.
It certainly looks like a trend to Labor since the strip club, with both Morgan ph and Galaxy increasing Labor’s primary. I will await Morgan F2F on Friday and Newspoll next Tues before it’s certain. However, unless Morgan F2F is really good for the govt, the cumulative August polling using ACN, News, Galaxy and Morgan F2F will show a swing to Labor from the July cumulative polls in Bryan’s graphs. These graphs do not include Morgan ph, which has been the best poll for Labor since July, and was accurate on primaries at the 2004 Fed and 2006 Vic and Qld elections. It’s looking like a BIG win to Labor; I’m predicting 100 seats for Labor.
Dear old John Stone, the brain of Joh for PM. Seriously how high would would RBA push rates if his budget recommendations were followed?
What utter crap. Grattan is a model of impartiality. I’ve been reading her stuff for more than 30 years and I have no idea what her politics are. She is a professional to her fingertips. The same is true of Oakes although I don’t see him as often.
But the new model media goes something like this – if you’re not a complete lickspittle to the Liberal Party and right-wing perspectives more broadly… you _must_ be a lefty. Grattan is not a lickspittle, therefore she is a comrade.
Canberra joke: What’s the only way to avoid having Michelle Grattan ring you at home at 11pm? Answer: Tell her everything you know when she rings at 10pm.
Yes indeed. His ban Muslim migrants idea was particularily funny.
He really does not understand the fine touch needed to play the race card. There are plenty of red-necked voters out there, for sure, but they can only vote once. If you go out too hard then then rest voters are repulsed.
Glen,
Look in the mirror. That is where all your real problem’s lay. Blaming everyone but yourself is so “adolescent”. Take reponsibility for your policy failures, your failure to read the mood of the electorate and your unquenching desire to hold on to the discredited Howard.
You’ve had your chances and you blew them all.
A ten year stint in opposition might teach you a bit about humility.
Nah, the Liberals will need at least 15 years in Opposition. Even then, they’ll never learn humility.
Nah, again. Twenty-three years wearing hair shirts. In caves.
It’s lovely to see the panic beginning to creep in to the posts of people like Glen and Nostrils.
But let’s not go counting chickens before they hatch.
While Labour is in a commanding position in the polls, the election campaign has not been called officially and the government has not begun to really throw out the cash from that obscene budget surplus. While they are probably scared to give it out in tax cuts, because of the pressure it puts on interest rates, if they think they are going to lose they might just do something similar to the one off cash payments to pensioners that they have been doing the last few elections but on a broader scale.
Anyway, I’m not taking anything for granted until I see Howard concede on election night. The australian people are too easily bought.
🙂
Just a query regarding the 2PP reported. Am I right in thinking that the 2PP must be over-stated for Labor because more survey respondents are nominating Labor as their first preference in this poll, compared to say the previous election?
My reasoning is this: I understand that most polls use the previous election’s preference values to determine the likely preference distribution for the “current poll”. Labor received 38% of first preferences in 2004. Thus, there were 62% of electors who voted for non-Labor parties, and could potentially nominate Labor as their second preference. However, in these polls, as 47% of respondents are nominating Labor as their first preference, that means that there is only a pool of 53% of potential second preference votes available for Labor.
Or is this issue somehow taken into account in determining the 2PP of polls?
I don’t know how statistically significant it is, but it just reinforces (for me) the notion that the 2PP figure should not be focused upon as it is likely overstated when relying upon the previous election’s preference distribution.
The primary vote should be the focus.
At 47 ALP / 39 Coalition, it’s still a blinder.
There seems to be a bit of desperation in some of the posts, following the Galaxy result. The Kevin07 team will certainly be pleased with the result, but Howard has two more tricks up his sleave which may(?) impact on voting intentions.
1. APEC – will it be good, bad or ugly?
2. The election campaign itself – the last circuit breaker!
Don’t buy the lines that there is more dirt on Rudd or Gillard. If there was it would’ve been splattered all over the papers by now. Howard Ministers would’ve seen to that. I’ve said it before, that the Liberals will be rueing the fact that Costello didn’t have the ticker. Minchin, Downer and Abbott should also question their judgement – they should’ve have tapped JWH last year. As Simon Howson noted above – we’ve seen some successful transitions in the past at a state level.
I cannot see Howard being easily beaten nor that there will be an election result which is more than 51 or 52 TPP either way.
What I do find most interesting in the poll trends is that it appears that Howard “sacred cows” are being questioned: economic management, Galaxy polling being the most Pro-Coalition, pork-barrelling working.
I don’t think that such matters indicate that there will be an ALP landslide at the election, but perhaps they are necessary pre-conditions for a change of government in the 51/52 election outcome range.
The SMH, after noting Ruddock’s comments that everyone is ‘sick to death of polls’, is running a poll on whether people are sick of polls.
http://www.smh.com.au/polls/politics/form.html
Methinks they take the piss.
Which is in itself a bad sign for the government. It’s moving beyond the ‘could it happen?’ phase to the ‘here’s a joke about it’ phase.
And hey, 12 hours and 160 posts and not one mention of ‘the Man of Steel’.
Man of Steel!
There ya go crispy.
🙂
Crispy, the “man of steel” is rusting
Tim (the other Tim): “Minchin, Downer and Abbott should also question their judgement – they should’ve have tapped JWH last year.”
Too right. But that particular horse bolted long ago. Costello must be spitting chips. Win or lose, if and when Costello becomes Lib leader, the hatchet job on Howard’s reputation will begin. When Howard’s gone, Costello won’t even pretend to hold back – and he’ll have the old Liberal establishment in Melbourne to back him up. It’ll be ugly.
In reply to Greensborough Growler, with regard to senate possibilities; it is my understanding (correct me someone please if i am wrong), that although the state senators don’t commence their terms, and hence change the voting balance, until July 08, the territory senators come into the chamber at the next sitting. This means that if the Libs lose their seat in the ACT they will lose their present majority. On present polling there is a good chance the Greens or ALP will pick up the 2nd seat and Work Choice could be given the flick pronto.
Gee, that Glen fella likes capitalisation, does he shout a lot at home?
A terminal case of metal fatigue
On whether the Coalition will claw back votes during the campaign – well probably, but I’m struggling to see where they can get more than a few points from.
The electorate seems ultra cynical so the pork barreling wont seem to do it.
I cant imagine huge tax cuts will do it either with the specter of higher interest rates and and the cynical nature of the place at the moment.
The debate?
I reckon Howard will more resemble this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
(gratuitous but highly amusing 30 sec clip)
…than some great orator – so none there either.
Which begs the question, for you folks that reckon Howard is going to close the gap dramatically – how will he get those votes and where will they come from?
Isn’t that the exact aim of Glen and his co-workers Nostro, Steve Kaye and Cerdic Conan – a war of mental attrition.
Perhaps it is time to deal with this tactic. Ideas anyone?
Pritam (116)
DON’T RESPOND.
Nah, the Liberals will need at least 15 years in Opposition. Even then, they’ll never learn humility.
John Rocket (163)
They only ever learn the superficial act of humility.
And speaking of Laurie Oakes, as some have, is he having health troubles? He looks like shit of late.
We have yet to see the “grandad” factor kick in yet. Grandad’s a nice bloke, but run the country – me thinks not. Time for change!
Here’s a poll that says 76% of voters have already made up their minds:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Voters-have-made-up-their-mind-survey/2007/08/27/1188066995401.html
Isn’t this actually non-news. Don’t we know that both parties have a base vote of about 35% who vote the same every election?
The government is doing so poorly, because it essentially only has its base supporting it on primaries.
Matt Price has put up a blog post regarding the Galaxy results:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mattprice/index.php/theaustralian/comments/beware_the_baby_faced_annihilator/
Yep, I think Costello’s first order of business would be to put as much distance between himself and the Howard Legacy. Which means everything except tax reform, super reform and balanced budgets would hung on Howards and booted out the door.
One problem is the distinct possibility that the Liberals will go backwards in Victoria – in a landslide they could loose another 5 seats leaving a fairly narrow parlimentary power base.
If you thought it surely could not get any worse for Howard, think again.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pick-apec-a-pickled-party-pooper/2007/08/27/1188066999440.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
“This morning US first lady Laura Bush announced she would not attend next week, citing a a pinched nerve.
The news will come as a blow to prime mininster John Howard’s wife Janette, who will host a Spouse’s Program during the summit that will involve seeing native animals and a visit to Bondi.”
I have never seen so much rudeness in 11 years!
Thanks possum.
Are far as I can see the close election theorem rests on somje function of the the following limbs (or variables) (interested to know anyone who has extra rational limbs):
* people really love JwH, and are lying to all the pollsters (now including galaxy) but will vote with their hearts on the day (I include the systematic bias that infects all pollsters in this general variable).
* economics is still a big win for Howard and he will use economics to kill kevin.
* national security is still a big win for Howard and he will use a National Security scare to kill kevin.
* somehow the more than 12 months of manic campaigning doesn’t count and there is something spiritual and special about the issue of writs that will snap voters back to reality and they will vote for JwH because they did before (perhaps my personal view of the strength of this argument slipped into my expression of it :-); but I include the ‘decide on the day on the way into the box theorem in this category, and the Howard is a magic campaigner after the writs even if he has sucked for most of this year).
* History says labor can’t have a landslide win because they haven’t before.
And yes scarred was a mis-type but when I saw it I chuckled.
I honestly think with a primary voting about where it is polling, even if every single undecided falls to JwH it might not be enough. And rationally ideas like every single undecided falling one way seem a little far fetched. Those who decide on the way in will be make decisions based on what their mates are going to do, who has the prettier girls / guys smiling with HTV at the booth etc, how good the slogans at the booth are.
Anyways keen to hear how wrong I am, not like Crikey will exclude me from the author list for the next Crikey Election guide if I’m wrong.
Interesting that Malcolm Turnbull was commenting on the poll today and not John Howard and also that he has softened his line on the mill.
He is certainly getting lots of coverage and it’s not all bad.
The Coalition has nothing to lose politically in Malcolm rejecting the pulp mill proposal on a number of perfectly valid grounds.
If he approves the pulp mill the Coalition will not win those two seats.
If he rejects the pulp mill, he outgreens Peter Garrett and must win a number of Green preferences in vital seats.
I was talking to a senior Green in the seat of Richmond who said that Greens preferences were by no means certain. I was talking as though the seat would easily be retained by Labor.
Greens preferences could well save Malcolm his seat.
Now if we assume, as we surely must, that Malcolm did not bother going into politics to merely be booted out at the next election and that he must have his eyes on the top job ( as all his staffers can confirm) then it is in his interests, as well as the interests of garnishing Greens preferences in a number of seats, to reject the pulp mill.
Poor old Peter will look rather silly and empty-handed.
This could be the wedge to save the election for the Coalition.
All they need to do is to have enough Greens preferences in four or five marginal seats to retain government.
Sure they will still lose ten or eleven seats or more, but they may deny Kevin Rudd the sixteen he needs.
If Malcolm rejects the pulp mill and then talks about locking up more of Tasmania’s old growth forests, he may throw away any chances of keeping the Tasmanian seats (or would he?), but it could be the masterstroke of the campaign.
Geoffrey Cousins could be doing his old mate John Howard one huge favour.
Of course, who will then be the great hero, saving the election for the Coalition?
None other than Malcolm Turnbull.
He would then be in a much better position to take over very soon after the election.
Now the question is, does Malcolm have the guts to reject the proposal?
Peter Costello wouldn’t.
My bet is he does have the guts and may well do it.
Some of the top class submissions he has been receiving on the pulp mill give him every good reason to reject it and he can quote them in his decision.
Maybe the election is not all over yet! This one big decision could alter the result.
It’s possibly the Coalition’s one last chance.
Will he do it and will it work?
[I was talking to a senior Green in the seat of Richmond who said that Greens preferences were by no means certain.]
Greens preferences will flow 75%+ to the ALP, even if they don’t hand out how to vote cards.
Interesting Mr Jones, interesting indeed. I don’t know which I find more intriguing the idea that a Liberal green revival has credibility with the public, or the idea that the greens will embrace Howard and give him an election win.
Where is Bill when we need him. While I know the greens don’t love labor and our history of balancing saving this reef with the destruction of that island for gas processing; do the libs have a history and credibility that is so strong the greens can actually prefer a liberal government (without a senate check or balance) in control of the environment (and other social policy levers) for another three years?
As far as I can see the greens get nothing but three years of abuse out of ensuring a Howard re-election. I know they have to pretend to be open to liberal seduction or Labor can take their votes for granted and give them nothing … but to actually work to ensure Mr Howard wins, are you happy to do this for one pulp mill (delay – surely even the greens wouldn’t believe a second proposal for the mill – ‘with major new safeguards’ – wouldn’t be approved the Sunday after the coalition is returned?
Honestly I’m so biased on this question I struggle to come up with an objective view. Bill I’d really love your view (if you are allowed to share it).
If the Greens preferenced the Liberal Party they would lose my vote.
I am not actually suggesting the Greens machine would print how-to-votes preferencing the Coalition, at least not in many seats if any at all.
What I am suggesting is that the Greens voters I have talked to, and they are legion, are extremely disappointed with Kevin Rudd’s decision on Tasmania’s forests and the pulp mill and are ambivalent about their preferences.
I was actually quite taken aback when this senior Green told me that one couldn’t assume Greens preferences would be going to Labor.
They could after all print two sided how-to-votes as the Democrats did on occasion.
My view is that middle of the road Greens voters will not automatically preference Labor and if given a sound reason would preference Liberal.
They don’t slavishly follow how-to-vote suggestions.
There is no great gap between Labor and Liberal on heartland green issues, except the nuclear power station issue.
Malcolm’s rejection of the pulp mill could change the balance.
“If the Greens preferenced the Liberal Party they would lose my vote.”
Same. I would find it reprehensible considering how the last 11 years have panned out. Whatever issues the Greens have with the ALP, they are much more palatable than the current Coalition setup.
Also, it is in the Greens’ future electoral interests for the ALP to win in the lower house. It brings up the prospect for a Double Dissolution and that is where the Greens can really make an electoral impact. A Coalition win would make this scenario unlikely.
Forgot to mention, I don’t buy the argument that APEC, or a serious nation security scare, will necessarily work in Howard’s favour. Quite the contrary. If I was Howard I would be quite worried about both.
Being seen schmoozing up to the incompetent lunatic Bush is not a great plus anymore, and may never have been. Certainly at this point in the proceedings it could cost Howard votes. Indulging in yet more exploitative photo ops could work against him, given that the electorate seem sick of his face already, and have wisened up to his tactics.
And if a large bomb went off in a train station during peak hour, people might ask why Howard failed to prevent it, and whether he has made us a bigger terrorist target with his policies. He can’t have it both ways on security issues. He can’t claim that if nothing happens the credit belongs to his government, and also claim that if something does happen only his government can properly protect us from further such events. He has painted himself into a corner on this issue.
# 173 – you’re correct on the ACT Senate terms, but even under that scenario the Coalition would have 38/76 until 30 June 2008, which would be sufficient to block any legislation if they saw fit.
[I am not actually suggesting the Greens machine would print how-to-votes preferencing the Coalition, at least not in many seats if any at all.]
It wouldn’t matter if they did. Greens preferences go 75%+ to the ALP irrespective of what is written on the how to vote card. Even if how to vote cards aren’t handed out, the ALP still gets at least 75% of the preferences.
Even if Turnbull came out with a policy stopping the pulp mill, or adding even tougher regulations, that would be cancelled out by his support for nuclear power.
In my opinion there would be very few Green voters who are going to decide their preferences on a single issue.
If Howard loses there’ll be some Liberal backbenchers who didn’t get promoted under Howard who will stick the knife in as soon as the election result is declared. I remember last time Peacock lost an election. Within hours, Peter Reith, who no-one at that time had ever heard of, came out attacking Peacock like a ravenous dog. All these guys who now say they back Howard 100 percent will come out and say how they tried to warn him but were the lone voice in the Liberal wilderness. It’s in times of great defeats that often true leadership skills come out. It will be interesting to see which Liberals stand firm and which give in to anger and back-biting.
Just Me the only reason the terrorist attacks in Madrid caused the centre-right Popular Party of outgoing leader Jose Maria Aznar to lose the election because they blamed it on ETA not islamic terrorism…
If terrorists hit us in Australia people would be less likely to elect a party who would surrender to global terrorism than a party whose willing to fight them tooth and nail for victory.
The Libs should seriously consider using the pulp mill as wedge on Rudd they should force Gunns to move it to Braddon instead of Bass…Turnbull had better be pressing Howard and Gunns for this ‘popular option’…
While it probably wont stop Labor winning those two Liberal marginals in Tassie it could hurt…
Also just wondering we should all put forward our Aussie Politics Quotes of the Year…
Mine without a doubt is from Assistant Treasurer Peter Dutton 7th August 2007…subject: Kevin Rudd…
“People, at the moment, are looking at Kevin Rudd like they look at a promo for Big Brother it’s exciting, it’s fresh and when the big night comes and people actually have a closer look and they look at the detail, and they get a better understanding of what the show’s actually about, they actually realise that it’s a load of crap”
I couldnt have said it any better than that…
Glen,
I’m sure they are considering all options. However the problem now is that the back benchers are going to be worried about their own seats and not focusing on a national fight. Personally I hope Turnbull survives. We need people like him to make sure the extreme right wing doesn’t take over the Liberal Party after the defeat.
According to this Morgan Poll http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4203/ it seems to me that the libs would lose more of their supporters than they would gain, if they switched leaders
Well this is not what Greens voters are telling me. The single issue is a deep concern for nature exemplified by retention of the magnificent old forests in Tasmania.
This is an emotional issue that goes way beyond rational thought.
The nuclear issue is a brown issue not a green issue.
The big difference between Labor and Liberal is that nuclear power stations will probably not be built under Labor but may be possibly in ten or fifteen years under the Coalition but only after a plebiscite.
One of the recent Morgan polls showed a significant number of Green voters preferencing Liberal.
Green issues are the weak link for Labor.
They think that 75% will give their preferences to Labor regardless and they can be taken totally for granted, even when trashing their most important heartland issues.
Neither Labor nor the Coalition will win without preferences. That’s where the real battle lies now.
I believe the primary votes are pretty solid but minor preferences are not.
These may be the last rabitts he pulls.
I heard that he will propose to privatise medibank and give all policy holders some $1000 of free shares if he wins 07. Can people be bought with this? As medibank represents over 30% of the private HI market and over 3million people. Add to this a handout to pensioners and tax benefit A and B holders, and you might be talking afew thousand each.
Every man has his price, at what price can votes be bought. I reckon you could plot this. Some votes afew hundred with the majority falling at the $3k mark. I would not put it past him to do this.
“a party who would surrender to global terrorism”
Stupid and offensive lies like that is why no-one takes you seriously here Glen. I could just as fairly say the Liberals are “a party who would send all Aborigines to extermination camps.” I don’t think you’d like that.