• There doesn’t appear to be anyone left who expects parliament to sit next week. Dennis Shanahan and Matthew Franklin of The Australian report that the Prime Minister is “set to call a November 24 election tomorrow”. On the other hand, Maria Hawthorne of The Advertiser reckons the trigger might yet be pulled today, and that the date could yet be December 1, while Michelle Grattan and Ben Doherty of The Age think December 1 unlikely and are instead leaving open November 17. Canberra reader John Ryan fancies he can hear “the continuous humming of shredders” from government offices in Barton.
• A summary of the state of play in The Australian contains the surprising assessment that Labor is only an “outside chance” of winning the crucial Darwin-based seat of Solomon, in the view of “party strategists”. The report also points to a mere status quo result in Victoria, and takes a bullish view of the Liberals’ prospects in Western Australia. “Based on published opinion polls”, Coalition sources are said to be “optimistic” about retaining Stirling and Hasluck, and hopeful of gaining Cowan and Swan. There is little reason this should be so, as those polls almost uniformly show a swing to Labor in WA that would win them all four. The one striking exception has been the only electorate-level poll to have emerged, a Westpoll survey from June that had the Liberals narrowly ahead in Stirling, Hasluck and Cowan. This was a considerably worse result for Labor than those that have emerged from Westpoll’s monthly statewide surveys of federal voting intention during the last six months. On the other side of the ledger, the report tells us the Coalition is “expected” to divert resources from a number of seats in the other mainland states which are regarded as lost causes, including Lindsay and Dobell in New South Wales, Bonner in Queensland and Kingston, Makin and Wakefield in South Australia. In Tasmania, Labor is said only to be no more than “confident” of recovering Bass and Braddon.
• Laura Tingle notes some patterns in the Prime Minister’s recent movements in yesterday’s Financial Review:
In the past three months, Howard’s been seen in the vicinity of his barely held South Australian electorates only when he announced (at the state Liberal Party conference, not in the electorates) a $100 million road project. He hasn’t turned up in Ross Vasta’s seat of Bonner since April … the Prime Minister has been a little more active in seats held with margins between 1 and 3 per cent – notably the Tasmanian seats of Braddon and Bass.
• Here’s a thought. At the state election last March, Nick Xenophon stunned everybody when he did well enough to win a seat not only for himself, but also for his No Pokies running mate. Who’s to say he can’t do it again? The vote recorded for Xenophon’s ticket at the state election was 20.5 per cent. Those who say he can’t possibly do that well again might be right – but on the other hand, they might not be. If not, Xenophon will score his quota with 6.2 per cent to spare. That surplus will then go to his second candidate, henceforth to be called Xenophon 2, who would very likely emerge ahead of the Greens (6.4 per cent in 2004) after preferences. If the Greens put Xenophon ahead of the major parties on preferences, as they did at the state election, this should push Xenophon 2 into double figures. This scenario leaves at best 75 per cent of the vote left over for the major parties, and most likely a fair bit less. Unless one of the two major parties gets 43 per cent from that share, the third candidate of the weaker of the two major parties will be eliminated and Xenophon 2 will be elected on their preferences. Another possibility, noted by Penelope Debelle in The Age, is that Xenophon 2 won’t do quite well enough to overhaul the Greens, but could feed them enough preferences to put them in contention for the sixth seat.
• John Wiseman of The Australian points to another possible side-effect of Xenophon’s nomination: that he might “have an impact on House of Representatives marginals should he choose to endorse or support candidates as he did for some at last year’s state election”. Xenophon had a direct bearing on the other big surprise of the state election, Kris Hanna’s success in retaining his seat of Mitchell as an independent after quitting first the ALP and then the Greens. Hanna had closely associated himself with Xenophon, pooling campaign resources in Mitchell and appearing at a press conference with him when he announced he was leaving the Greens.
• Tamar Valley vigneron and anti-pulp mill campaigner Peter Whish-Wilson says he has decided against running as an independent in Bass. Matthew Denholm of The Australian reports that Labor polling has the Greens candidate at 18 per cent, but that the mill is not considered a “vote changer” as far as the major parties are concerned.
Bill, the Australian article quoted in William’s entry suggests that Liberal sources are confident of holding the ALP back to 4 gains outside of Queensland.
Since they’ve basically conceded the 3 SA seats, this leaves them assuming Labor will only pick up 1 other seat, or that they will pick up a few more, to be countered by wins in Swan and Cowan.
Just being very cautious with state swings I played around with the calculator and got this result:
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/calculator/
Now, I don’t think any of these gains are too extravagant, and there are probably one or two seats in the Coalition column you’d at least factor in as possibilities for the ALP. Even factoring in the chance that Cowan might swing Coalition, I’d say this looks a whole lot more likely than the 4 gains the Australian is willing to concede the ALP.
It’s either the published polls have all been completely wrong all year long, the Liberal party have some previously unheard of polling method which makes their results more reliable, or the Libs are telling fibs. I seriously don’t know anymore…
I second that
On the individual seats issue vs national polls…
I’m sure that I am out of date with some of these but here goes:
Notionally Labor held seats with their polled tpp and sources:
Denison 64 – EMRS August
Franklin 61 – EMRS August
Lyons 61 – EMRS August
Brand 58 – ALP September
Bendigo 56 – August source?
Cowan 48.5 – Westpoll June
Notionally Coalition held seats with their polled tpp and sources:
Kingston 56 – Advertiser January
Bonner – Campaign reduced Sept/Oct?
Makin 54 – Advertiser October 9
Wakefield – Campaign reduced Sept/Oct?
Parramatta – Campaign reduced Sept/Oct?
Braddon 54 – EMRS August
Wentworth 53 – ALP August
Lindsay – Campaign reduced Sept/Oct?
Bass 59 – EMRS August
Hasluck 48 – Westpoll June
Stirling 47 – Westpoll June
Eden-Monaro 61 – Morgan? + ALP 20 Sept?
Bennelong 53 – Morgan September + others
Dobell – Campaign reduced Sept/Oct?
La Trobe 56 – ALP August/September?
Boothby 46 – Advertiser September 27
Herbert 52.8 – AEC group September
Sturt 48 – Advertiser October 5
Higgins 48? – ALP September
Kooyong 51? – ALP September
Goldstein 51? – ALP September
North Sydney 53 – ALP October 6
Leichhardt 51 – ALP September
Forrest (Independent polling 51?) – Liberal September 28
Forde 51 – ALP September 1
Grey 51 – Liberal September 25
McPherson 49 – ALP October 2
My apologies for those that are either inaccurate, incomplete or out of date or all three. Would love to see someone more in the know than me be able to provide an updated table of these individual seat polls. Not good for bandwidth here I guess, so sorry for that.
For all you guys crowing on about the “Government Gazette” 17-seat conspiracy rubbush, swallow this:
Due to the Tasmanian ALP MP’s expulsion from the party, Labor now has 59 seats. Therefore, they need 17 to achieve a majority in the lower house. It’s as simple, or as difficult (for some) as that.
That is not what the Libs think. The Libs know quite well they are behind in at least 20 seats at the moment. If Shanahan says different he is lying. As Possum has cogently argued, a lot of Howard’s pre-election manoeuvring has been about shoring up allegedly safe Liberal seats, like Sturt, Boothby, Casey, North Sydney and Ryan, seats with many socially-liberal Liberals who are jumping ship on issues like climate change and refugees. The attempt to save some of the front-rank marginals, where WorkChoices is the dominant vote-flipper, will come later – as it did in 2004 with the “L-plate” campaign against L*th*m.
The seats where I think the Libs are currently behind, and know it, are: Parramatta, Lindsay, Dobell, Eden-Monaro, Bennelong and Page (NSW), La Trobe and Corangamite (Vic), Bonner, Moreton, Herbert and Blair (Qld – I’m being very conservative with Qld), Hasluck and Stirling (WA), Kingston, Wakefield and Makin (SA), Bass and Braddon (Tas) and Solomon (NT). That’s 20. I think Bennelong may come back when the crunch comes, as Lowe did for McMahon in 1972. But there are plenty of other seats on the edge, in NSW (Wentworth, Roberston), Vic (Deakin, McMillan, McEwen), Qld (Petrie, Bowman, Leichhardt, Flynn) and SA (Boothby and Sturt) and even WA (Canning).
A-C, don’t make a bigger fool of yourself than you have already. Labor won Franklin in 2004, it is therefore a Labor seat. Labor needs 16 seats. With Harkins gone there is no chance of Labor losing it.
William & co,
Regarding your Nick X theory, I agree it is a chance, but only because anybody has a chance if they can grab a few extra percentage points. Cue Family First in Victoria in ’04.
How well he does is dependent on three things:
– Whether his stunts get public attention (the giraffe stunt a few days ago was almost universally well accepted here, but he will need more then that)
– How pissed off people become with the two major parties during the campaign
– How credible a challenge the greens & FF can present in SA (the dems are not going to even be in the race.)
Those who are interstate can’t fully comprehend how well known this man is. If you say to a stranger on the street ‘what do you think of Martin Hamilton-Smith’ the answer would generally be ‘who?’ (for those who are not cluey, he is the opposition state leader.) But everybody knows who Mr X is, even those who don’t follow politics at all.
He has five factors working for him:
– The demise of the Dems will see him pick up a huge bunch of their supporters from the ’01 election.
– South Australians know that they regularly get screwed over by the Eastern states. He is pitching himself as the man ‘to get all that he can’ from the federal government. This is appealing – ie the “Brian Harradine†effect.
– He is campaigning on the water issue. If he manages to get credibility and publicity with this issue, a swag of votes will go to him just for that
– The Stunt Factor. He makes people laugh, he makes people think, he gets his point across, and he has mastered the TV sound bite.
– Increased public knowledge in the Senate. In this area, the Greens and Dems have sealed their fate. People might not know the inistrisics of the system, but they understand that a government with two houses is not what they want. People therefore will take an extra second to consider their upper house vote, rather then blindly tick Labor or Liberal.
There is no doubt he will lose supporters who voted for him in the state election – generally peeved off that he has shot off so soon. But on the flip side, the vast majority are starting to understand the states are absolutely useless, and that Canberra is the way to go to get things done. He will lose some votes, but gain some as well for reasons described above. He also has the advantage of having very few people who simply can’t stand him. While a lot despise his stunt tactics, they generally respect his reputation for getting things done. He isn’t just a pretty face.
Will it be 20%? I doubt it – but it is entirely dependent on the media reaction. In 2006, the leading story on the day before the election was Xenophon on the front steps of parliament house with his goat. In that election, every man and his goat, uh, dog, knew Labor would win, due to the uselessness of the opposition. This won’t be the case in ’07, he won’t get as much coverage, the papers will be too busy.
And as a final point – his name is apparently not going to be ‘above the line’ on the ballot paper. Which is bad for obvious reasons.
I have a question for those who know more about this then I do – what happens if somebody votes below the line, but does not tick all of the boxes? Is the vote invalid? If I vote below the line then I’ll fill in all the boxes, but I’m wondering what would happen if people didn’t…
Cheers
[ Labor now has 59 seats. Therefore, they need 17 to achieve a majority in the lower house. It’s as simple, or as difficult (for some) as that. ]
.
.
That’s one of the dumbest posts I’ve ever read.
To Pancho and others discussing the importance of the betting markets.
I would be surprised if the betting on individual seats had any importance at all. When claims are made that the markets have accurately predicted the outcomes of past elections, they are talking about the head to head odds between the parties. On that basis the ALP is streets ahead and its odds will shorten even further if the present state of the polls continues for another two or three weeks.
[I have a question for those who know more about this then I do – what happens if somebody votes below the line, but does not tick all of the boxes? Is the vote invalid? ]
Yes, if boxes are left blank, or if the numbers aren’t sequential (say they write a 22 and 24 but not 23. Then the vote is informal.
Max says:
“what happens if somebody votes below the line, but does not tick all of the boxes? Is the vote invalid?”
Yes, the vote will be invalid if they do not number all the boxes below the line.
Is there a reason ‘Mr X’ cannot get above the line? I would’ve assumed someone as savvy as himself would’ve thought of this before resigning SA parliament. I always though candidates had longer to nominate for elections than the public did to enrole and nominations closed off sometime after the election was closed.
Thinking of the ’17 seats’ somewhat differently. If we set all swings to 0 on Antony’s calculator it gives Cowan and Isaacs as notional Liberal gains and Makin as a notional Labor gain. This gives the ALP 59 seats and a required notional 17 seat gain required. Still a pretty spurious argument…
Gaynor you evoke such wonderful memories.
Late Fifties. King Ming ruled. Gran refused to have a TV in “Her House”. The family sitting back after a feast similar to yours and getting stuck into the issues of the day with great passion and bonhomie. ‘Twas the glue that bound us.
On a beautiful island in the Maldives but had to log in to get my pollbludger fix!
William will you be able to release my last comment?
Not if it mentions J*ws.
Adam why would it mention judes?
How’s it going in La Trobe, Victoria? Any news?
Thanks, Darn.
Juden not judes
I think the 90% rule applies. 90% of the boxes below the line must have a number in it. I think the elector is only permitted 4 mistakes, but I stand corrected.
Yes EC, that’s when I learned to cook off my mother. It was a simpler and happier time. That is why people pine for that era, it was less complicated when people mattered.
To me it appears that the PM is nostalgic for the time but doesn’t promote the values that made it memorable.
#
167
Michael Proud Says:
October 13th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Juden not judes
I thought Juden might be banned too
The formality of votes is considered in the Scrutineers Handbook issued bythe ARC, a link below. This does include the 90% rule if there are more than 9 candidates.
http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/scrutineers_handbook/5formality_of_votes.htm
So far Juden is not banned. Ironic isn’t it?
So I can say “Juden raus!” but not “there are a lot of J*ws in Melbourne Ports.” Dieses ist kein sinnvoll.
Max@155
Mr X will need to print very precise ‘How to vote’cards, then ensure he has enough volunteers to cover every booth on polling day, covering pre-poll & postal voters will be tricky.
Little point in distributing this guff prior – most people don’t take it to the booth on polling day.
With the senate ballot papers – they are always over-sized and have been as big as a tablecloth in the past.
As ShowsOn & CTEP have explained votes are informal if every box is not numbered below the line.
paul k and Adam
-I’m just stating the facts, and to suggest I’m being a fool or dumb just sheds light on your immaturity as opposed to my intelligence.
Please show us that Labor currently holds more than 59 seats or retract your silly statements.
Adam, I have pondered why it is that the word J*w itself is seen as a word that isn’t used. It feels wrong to use it and j*w*sh is preferable. If you say “A lot of the voters in Caulfield ar J*ws.”, then you would get looks. But if you said “There are lots of j*w*sh voters in Culfield” it is ok.
Strangely there is no compunction to used other nouns rather than adjectives for people of different religions.
Of course you must not say “Juden ‘raus” at all.
A-C,
My comment stands. If you really think Labor does not hold the seat and will lose it then you are living in dreamland.
Mr X could win the third lib seat with the Greens winning the third ALP seat especially with the Unions and YR@W behind us in the senate because of the weak IR policy of Rudd
Why would anyone discuss what The Australian [GG] says on this? It is a trash paper and most know it. It has a few good journalists but the way it is run at election times is for partisan effect. It’s only function at the moment seems to be to get Howard re-elected, hence this nonsense about Howard’s fantastic reconciliation back-flip saving the day etc. We can only hope this is just a once off favor in repayment of the hundreds of millions in advertising the Howard Govt has gifted to News Ltd.
Truth is you will know nothing either way from examining what they say – though you might from what the don’t say.
When I searched the murdoch papers on-line early this morning it was difficult to find many mentions of Rudd/Labor. They pushed them right into the background as they ran their election campaign on behalf of Howard. I haven’t seen the tree version of the papers.
NOW if the Govt’s position was suddenly so good why all the nonsense about Leadership change, joint PMs etc a few weeks back when Howard almost got dumped? It must have been looking extremely desperate to them from internal and external polls to go to that extreme. You would think that if they were in a stones throw they wouldn’t have been looking to dump Howard at the last second.
I think one big difference this year to previous years is that the strength of Labor’s vote has been in its primary vote level. Thus the voters are more committed than they have been – the experts can qualify this point for me.
Personally I believe Labor lost some votes because of McLelland’s idiotic folly. You have to wonder if it was deliberate as a reaction against Rudd’s control, the left trying to show itself and, then shooting itself in the foot? Anyway this opened the door for Howard and let him gets some bite with criticism and then his back flip. Even McLelland’s apology on the radio sounded terrible – he needs voice training.
So I am hoping and am sure that Rudd and team have a professional well prepared campaign and of course Howard will have the usual race, terrorist, fear, xenophobia, deceit campaign lined up with his journalist mates.
Gaynor
I trust your roast is a old bit of mutton dressed up as lamb. With gravy and trimmings to mask the obvious. I’ve found that a cumquat or two in the gravy does wonders to banish foul odours.
It’s either that or a slow-cooked traditional boiled dinner. Silverside, real white sauce, with parsley, potatoes, carrots, onions – cooked in separate pot – and peas and freshly ground black pepper. Followed by apple fool. And brandy, depends.
159 Call the Election Please
Why does Cowan appear as a Liberal gain if there is no national swing?
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/calculator/
William, the betting fluctuations are going to be significantly important during the course of the campaign. Maybe the bookies could be interested in providing us with their prices and betting movements as they happen directly to this site if possible?
The three heavyweight bookies are Sullivan (Sportingbet), Read (IAS), and Kafataris (Centrebet).
We will be able to judge every policy announcement and stuff up instantly.
It’s Narnia in here today. Always winter, but never Christmas. Always the campaign, but never the election.
Fortunately we’re also very big on roast lamb here at Crispy Kitchen.
Thank to all the responses.
I checked out the link from Michael (www.aec.gov.au/Voting/scrutineers_handbook/5formality_of_votes.htm) and it looks like that the 90% rule does apply – in certain cirumstances – although it’s not something you would want to rely on.
Either way, I agree it will be a challenge for Mr X to explain this to all his voters. As I think we all do.
178
Kina Says:
October 13th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
I think one big difference this year to previous years is that the strength of Labor’s vote has been in its primary vote level. Thus the voters are more committed than they have been – the experts can qualify this point for me.
So I am hoping and am sure that Rudd and team have a professional well prepared campaign and of course Howard will have the usual race, terrorist, fear, xenophobia, deceit campaign lined up with his journalist mates.
Thats one thing i am in doubt. The ALP vote in my opinion is not firm and could drop off if Howie gets a look in. Talking to people i work with the ones that voted Howard last time have mostly gone to Rudd but are now starting to waver again. These are the soft ALP voters we are seeing in the polls ( 20-30% of the total votes for all parties) and they will swing in the campaign. There are two keys to this election. 1. the campaign of both parties and 2. Green preferences in the second teer marginals.
Dr Good, I’m not sure, it just does for me. If I set my WA swing at 0% Cowan shows up as a Liberal gain with a new margin of 0.7%
paul k,
To be honest, I really couldn’t give a stuff about any labels you or any other leftards on this site throw in my direction.
What I’d like to know is where in the hell did you draw the thing about a “Liberal winning in Franklin” in my post? I didn’t say and I didn’t imply it. A Liberal winning there is just about as stupid as Possum’s analysis showing that something like 1/2 of Federal Parliament will change hands.
But since comprehension doesn’t seem to be a very big skill of your’s (or Adam’s), I’ll spell it out again for you:
As it stands, Labor now has 59 seats. They need 17 to win a majority. The Australian is right. You guys are wrong. Admit it.
I think Liberal supporters put on bets every time they think their is an event that damages Rudd or promotes Howard. Like the famous come back poll. I believe the current come back will be Liberal supporters thinking that Howard’s Aboriginal reconciliation pantomime and McLelland’s mess has given him a solid boost – thus a boost to their confidence. AND why not with those odds.
Likewise the Liberal party is no doubt holding up Howard’s odds simply as a matter of look. If the PM looks like getting beat the whole campaign appears a bit lame.
Derek,
Roast chicken is the other favourite with home made stuffing loaded with crushed chestnuts and cheesed bread crumbs. The kids aren’t all that fond of silverside or pot roast.
Cauliflower with cheese sauce is always popular, as is minted snowpeas and honey glazed carrots.
Everyone loves dumplings and brandy custard, but the grandkids love fresh apples dunked in hot toffee.
Pain the bum to clean up of course. My mother (god bless her) was a genius in the kitchen. Simple is beautiful. Young girls these days don’t seem to learn these skills.
I’d better stop, I’m feeling like Margaret Fulton on Lateline.
Re Cowan.
New boundaries, Antony’s calculator uses the swings after redistribution.
90
Alma Says:
Try this link.It seems OK to me.
If OK just put into your favourites.
There are no new boundaries in WA.
A-C, you are a moron. Admit it.
Alma, I’ll try again, sorry.
http://www.ozelection2007.info/forums/index.php
I think Possums did an analysis that showed the source of Labor’s increased primary. I think he said that in previous years voters parked their votes in the minors until election day but now they are parked directly in Labor.
I actually have a few converts to Labor at work including one woman on Thursday. Thats 3 work converts I have. ;]
I have a few Chinese converts too from when I meet groups of them weekly.
ruawake
I have seen no mention of a redistribution of Cowan since 2004.
I think they have only happened in Qld and NSW.
A-C may be right on the technicality of the issue. But if Quick isn’t contesting the election it certainly makes it hard to ‘gain’ the seat of a non-existant independent.
Whilst A-C is defending the Australian perhaps he’d like to explain how they worked out that from the 4 seats they’re willing to give the ALP outside of Queensland, they suggest the ALP will need to win 10 Queensland seats. Doesn’t 4 + 10 = 14 and not the 17 they suggest the ALP require to win government?
Dr Good… Untick the retiring Fed Members box and it will restore the status quo for you.
A-C,
The whole argument is how many seats does Labor have to gain. You are saying the seat is not on the Labor side of the ledger. By that logic we should remove from the government’s side of the ledger any seat where the sitting member is retiring. Believe what you want to believe but just don’t expect us to take you seriously.
Adam you are correct, it must be the retiring MP factor. 8)
Magic! Thanks Ray 195