• Galaxy has released further findings from yesterday’s poll, which can be viewed through this nifty graphic.
• Writing in The Age, Rod Cameron notes a particular concentration of the part-time working mothers targeted by the Coalition’s tax policy in the important Victorian seats of Deakin, La Trobe, Corangamite, McEwen and McMillan. Cameron also includes Solomon on his list of marginal Coalition seats which Labor can’t take for granted, which I had only previously heard suggested by Matthew Franklin and Brad Norington of The Australian.
• Greg Roberts of The Australian reports that both parties’ polling has Nationals incumbent Paul Neville holding a 55-45 lead over Labor candidate Garry Parr in the Bundaberg-based seat of Hinkler. Roberts’ article paints an unflattering picture of Parr’s campaign efforts which recalls the media-shy performance of Ed Husic, Labor’s disastrously unsuccessful candidate for Greenway at the 2004 election. Anecdotal evidence is also presented of strong local feeling over the council amalgamations issue.
• Shortly after dumped Labor member Gavan O’Connor announced he would attempt to hold his seat of Corio as an independent, Labor has promised to add $45 million to its existing funding plans for the Geelong Ring Road.
• Joe Hildebrand of the Daily Telegraph notes that the need to respond to the Coalition tax package caused Kevin Rudd to scrap “early rough plans” for “a sweep across the country from Brisbane to Sydney to Adelaide and Perth”. The only Liberal marginal seat he has found time to visit so far has been the Adelaide electorate of Kingston, reckoned by most to be a certain Labor gain.
• The Sky News Election 07: Agenda program last night broadcast a debate between Joe Hockey and Mike Bailey, the Liberal and Labor candidates for North Sydney, which you can hear as a podcast.
• George Megalogenis of The Australian notes that the behaviour of the major parties indicates they believe “working women are fibbing when they tell opinion pollsters they prefer increased public spending over another round of tax cuts” (can’t find the article online but I’m sure it’s there somewhere).
• After some invaluable advice from readers last month on reducing bandwidth costs, this vehicle is running a good deal more efficiently than it used to. Nonetheless, the announcement of the election has brought a further surge in traffic, so I am again having to shell out extra for the privilege of staying online until the end of the month. Please click on the PayPal button on the sidebar if you would like to make a contribution (I should acknowledge that whenever I make this plea, the resulting influx is enough to cover my costs with a fair bit to spare). To clear up a common point of confusion: you do not need a PayPal account to donate, you simply have to click “continue” where it says “Don’t have a PayPal account?” at the bottom left.
Bushfire
I agree with most of what you said. There is a rehearsed polish creeping into Rudd and the rest of Labor which smacks of over coaching. Clearly being so far out in front they want to play it conservatively and not make any mistakes. The Geniuses you mention are the same ones Keating mentioned recently – gartrell, gray etc who cant get out of bed without consulting a poll. Rudd is boring even me in his interviews – the repeated mantras, the need to stay on message, the daft words like ‘season’. This could open the door for Howard. Rudd needs to show a bit of the fire he showed in parliament when attacking costello. He can do this without losing his cool, since the govt is giving him all the provocation he needs. If this election for Labor degenerates into a fashion parade they stand a chance of getting rolled.
Regarding Galaxy – It’s interesting that it is the only poll so far to come up with 53/47 – the same as it did last June against the trend. Nielsen has it at 54/46 and Morgan (for what it’s worth) 55.5/45.5.
After seeing those questions, it seems Mr Briggs may have indeed been trying to create some artificial momentum for the government. Trouble is, artificial momentum does not win you elections.
Westpoll Surveys have pretty low sample sizes i think. Besides, given the somewhat right of center leaning of the West i take everything in there (except the movie adverts and the weather report) with a truckload of salt.
Re Bushfires 2005 Rudd speech link.
THanks for this. I’d forgotten that Rudd is not just a serious intellect but he has venom when he needs it – as Costello found out. The opening line on his demolition of Downer is a classic:
“Somewhere deep in the Adelaide Hills on Saturday night, Alexander Downer must have been playing battleships in his bathtub when he suddenly came up with a seriously cunning plan. Namely, to reinvent Australian post-war political history and argue that Labor under John Curtin was not the real defender of Australian liberty.”
The quarterly Essay Rudd wrote last year on social democracy was similiarly brilliant. As you say, I think we need to see a bit more of this cos at the moment he’s being seriously muzzled.
@ 201. Sean, nah.
The Australian electorate is smart, over time. It can see a government that consists of unrepresentive trolls.
#121 –
“Me-too, glass jaw, union domination – these buzz words are settling into the general population ”
Yep, Edward, especially union domination. I was speaking to a local handyman this morning who said he was especially concerned about all the unionists in Labor’s ranks. He also applauded the Government’s decision to scrap unfair dismissal laws and said it was a real boon to small business.
I think the fact that the ALP has decided to hide Combet and Shorten is very telling. The Government should start running ads pointing this out.
Meanwhile, at the Granny Smith festival in Bennelong, the PM was absolutely mobbed by fans and supporters. It was extraordinary. I almost felt sorry for McKew – almost.
Re: 121 million govt. advertising spend over a year (or 2 billion over eleven). Ramsey’s SMH article today alludes correctly to a twist of MSM headlines. Suspicion of Galaxy’s numbers, particularly in light of executive bias, are also worrying especially when subtle ‘push polling’ accusations are being tossed about here. Throw in stacking of our ABC board, the sudden shift to Sky as preferred carrier by the PM and legislation allowing broader ownership of the media… I think back to Howard’s appraisal of Lynton Crosby as Australia’s K Rove, and his use of fundamentalist churches.
An article on Crosby/Textor can be found here:
http://trevorcook.typepad.com/weblog/political_strategies/index.html
I’ve got a brief summary of the “push polling” discrepancies up here:
http://fairnews.com.au/content/view/50/1/
#168 –
” Next to no sign that the candidates care about local issues.”
Yep. One of the reasons why the Coalition is going to win is that their candidates are so much better at working their seats than Labor’s.
The Your Rights at Work caravan rolled into Wagga today. I went and did my bit and I must say that the message of rights at work is easy to sell, even in a safe Nats seat: it was easier than handing out free denture clinic visits to Collingwood supporters.
Lib supporters will want to be wearing brown trousers when the WorkChoices scare campaign kicks in.
Libpest, a collective noun to describe the asinine trolls on this site
JJ
Quite frightening. Why the Libs released their tax policy so early on was always a question, and if momentum is what they were after this goes a long way toward explaining the coordinated push.
Labor must retake the initiative and not let the coalition dictate terms. Particularly if they’re intent on attacking (as per Crosby/Textor) our strengths. We cannot afford to drop the ball, which is exactly why Keating warned against proponents of the two step approach. We cannot afford to be aced on education and health and I bet that is what the libs are planning… should we get our policy out now?
“Mobbed by fans and supporters .”
Steven, how much were they paid? Are they on AWAs?
He also did not quite understand that he was, physically, in Bennelong. “… Mr Speaker …”
When I make an apple pie using Granny Smiths, I remove the core. Otherwise, people tend to choke.
Gecko: I think Rudd needs to emphatically win the debate and launch into the next week with a big policy announcement – either on health or education. Hopefully that’s what he’s planning.
The issue is that the Coalition has had all of the resources of the government beuracracy to work on their policies. If the Coalition out-does Rudd on health and education policy, then it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
It has been a very interesting week of campaining. I have no idea how Rudd got away with essentially copying the lib tax plan, but he did, and kudos to him. Pete must be going nuts.
The way I see it is that Labor WILL win three seats in Adelaide. No less, because the swing required is only a few percent, which is obviously going to eventuate. No more, because Sturt will be just out of their reach (Mia was trailling by a couple of points at the start of the campaign, and one suspects that given Pyne is now on the campaign trail, there won’t be enough leaking votes to see her over the line.)
Boothby will not fall – the ’tiser recently predicted that there could be a swing TO the libs in that seat. An unqualified disaster.
So there are three swinging seats in SA, two in Tasmania, and let’s assume that WA is ultimately a draw. That leaves Labor needing the other 11 seats from the Eastern States. Which, of course, are the states with the most seats in them.
An early prediction. Labor will win with 85 seats, but Howard will hold his seat in Bennelong. Gutsy if I may say so myself 🙂
However. ‘Me too’ is starting to bite – interesting that the Greens keep using the line, despite hoping Labor gets up this election. The media loves it. Whether or not it changes votes remains to be seen.
For all those discussing what primary vote Labor needs to attain to win the election it is worth considering all elections since 1983. This is similar to what i pointed out in a thread yesterday, but it is worth stressing to the doomsayers. There have been 9 elections since 1983 (inclusive), 5 won by the ALP and 4 by the coalition.
In every election won by the ALP since 1983, they have obtained over 40% of the primary, apart from 1990 when they won with 39.8%.
Every election the ALP has lost since 1983, they have obtained LESS than 40%, apart from 1998 when they obtained 40.1%.
So folks, even if the ALP primary vote was to drop to say 41%, the ALP would have an excellent chance of winning.
This illustrates the magnitude of the task ahead for the coalition.
Agree on the debate. I do think, now is the time to accentuate the ideological divide and take a no prisoner approach. Our policy is better so get it out there and let them follow.
Max, reporting of the Tiser poll for Boothby was garbled but the poll did find a swing of about 2 per cent TO the ALP. Nowhere near good enough, agreed.
Phil @ 218
Sorry, you are right, my recollections came from the call of Mark Kenny on the adelaidenow election site. No idea why I read that to start with, but I digress…
(http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22535741-5006363,00.html)
Matthew Sykes I agree, if the ALP can secure a preference deal with Family First it will make it extremely hard for the Libs to win this election. They’ll need to get close to 50% primary in every seat to win without the preferences of a significant minor. That means they’ll need an improvement of rougly 4-5% on primaries alone.
Too many threads! Too many comments!
The budget bounce (?) – or was it the “end of the honeymoon†bounce? – is good news for Labor. It makes Labor people remember they have to keep working to win. It also opens the way for the next set of polls to show an increase in Labor’s vote, which is what I think will happen. An increase for Labor in the second campaign week is a good pay-off for a decline in the first.
Marky marky says called the DLP “rotten†on an earlier thread. For the record, I dispute the adjective. I agree that the DLP senators should not have deferred supply in 1974 – and I told Frank McManus so at the time – but you ought not forget that the DLP was formed because the controllers of the ALP in 1954/55 expelled prominent anti-communist members from Victoria. If those power-brokers had not been so stupid, we would have had a lot more years of Labor governments.
The issue of Labor preferencing the DLP in Victoria has been adequately discussed on other threads, so I won’t go into all the reasoning again.
Glen praised the DLP but then exempted its social policies from the praise, which of course is what we expect from today’s Liberals. The DLP pioneered such things as a guaranteed annual income, capitalisation of child endowment (family tax benefit today), a tribunal to determine pensions rates and much more. Its social policies were 30 years ago in advance of even Labor’s today, which puts them even further in front of the Liberals’.
I also note that the YourRights@Work campaign is advocating a vote for any anti-WorknotcalledChoicesanymore party in the Senate. That means the DLP, Family First and the Greens, as well as the ALP.
Of courses, if the Greens were thinking strategically, they would preference the Liberals in the Senate in order to increase the likelihood of a double dissolution election next year, with its nice low quota that would assist them to gain the balance of power.
#220
Regardless of any preference deals Family First makes with the ALP, they are a bright ray of hope for the Coalition, on average Family First are going to preference 60-65% in favour of the Coalition on average. Considering that the Greens voters preference 80% to Labor and the rest 50-50%.
If Labor preference Family First ahead of the Greens in the senate, that would deliver Family First an another senate seat in Victoria. Nick Xenophon is going to win a Senate seat in South Australia, before his entry Family First could have hoped of winning a senate seat there.
Tristan do you have any evidence to back up your assertion on the pref flow of Family First on occasions where they have had Labor preferences on their HTV’s?
The one thing that I console myself with Tristan, is that I think we can predict with some certainty that the green vote will be at least a factor of 2 higher than family first.
Chris @ 221
You actually raise an interesting point that I hadn’t though about for a while: the possibility of a double dissolution (DD).
A quick looks at ozpolitics tells us that the last DD was in 1987 – but that was done two and a half years after the election prior. The last time an election was called a year after the one prior was, to my looking, 1969 (or 18 months after in 1975.)
I’ve head a few people cry “DD” in the past few months. I just don’t see it happening for two reasons. First, the Coalition will almost certainly lose their majority as of July, at which point Labor can still get legislation through, provided they are able to negotiate. How many parties they need to negotiate with depends on the numbers.
Second, two elections in the space of 18 months? It is based on the (somewhat large) assumption that the public don’t get tired of Rudd in that time. I would imagine that an election called so soon would result in a massive backlash. Today’s world is different from the past – the media saturates issues like never before, so much so that the public will be well and truly over it. I think we will all need a nice, long break from seeing the word ‘campaign’ pop up again once December hits.
Theoretically, the libs could become such a rump that the pissed-off poll going electorate gives Labor more power anyway. But it would still be unlikely.
Max, the 1969 election happened almost a full three years after the previous House of Representatives election. The election that came in between was a half-Senate election only. The last very early election was in 1984, and this was justifiable because the 1983 double dissolution meant a half-Senate election had to be held by some time before mid-1985. I would say the likelihood of a mid-term DD in the event that Labor wins is very high, given the likely state of the Senate.
You can bet the whole thing was entirely orchestrated between all the players including murdoch news. Call the election, tax cut, Media frenzy, and push poll 53/47 to make it all seem the momentum was with the LNP. Just a further corruption of democracy and the media that is becoming more common place. Even on ABC News Radio this morning I hearn one mention of the Labor Tax policy release and that was a 1 second mention in passinig in 30 minutes of radio. Seemed a P-plater survey story was more important coming in as the second story.
———————————————-
Labor by 20 without Media corrupution
Labor by 5 with Media corruption
Labor supporters don’t buy murdoch papers
Max (215) I’m not sure what evidence you have that “me too” is beginning to bite. Rudd has been me-tooing ever since the budget to avoid gettting wedged and the evidence is there for all to see that it has worked spectacularlly – Labor a mile in front. Just because the coalition cheer squad don’t like it doesn’t mean it isn’t working. More likely the other way around.
Max,
Prior to the candidacy of Nick Xenophon, I thought it extremely unlikely that the Coalition would lose its blocking ability in the Senate; i.e., drop below 38 seats. In that event, it would refuse to repeal WorknotcalledChoicesanymore because that legislation is so central to what the Liberal Party has become. Labor could not afford to give up as the repeal of WorknotcalledChoicesanymore is so central both to its campaign and its raison d’etre. That leads to a double dissolution. There would be no reason to delay as Labor in federal government will be as popular as Labor in government in Victoria was after the 1999 state election and would romp home in any subsequent election.
However, the candidacy of Nick Xenophon makes it more likely, though not certain, that the Coalition will drop to 37 seats, leaving 39 pro-worker senators (ALP, Family First, Nick Xenophon and the Greens) and the end of the foul nineteenth century IR legislation we have endured.
Of course, Labor would still be constrained as a government by the need to reach compromises with those to the left of it and to the right of it at the same time. If it succeeded in repealing WorknotcalledChoicesanymore, a double dissolution would be less likely but not impossible. I say “less likely†because a double dissolution election would raise the prospect of Labor being totally dependent on the Greens for its legislation to pass, a situation it strove to avoid in the Victorian election. I say “not impossible†because it would be difficult to govern when almost nothing can be passed unless the Greens and FF and Senator Xenophon all agree to it and there is no certainty of dependence on the Greens in a double dissolution election. It is possible that a double dissolution election would result in a Senate of ALP 38, Greens 6, FF 1, Nick Xenophon 1, Coalition 30, in which case Labor would have a choice of which party it would need to compromise with to get legislation through.
Mark at 2:10 pm
Yeah right Mark, let’s break down the “restrictive” practices of all professionals: let butchers do surgery, handymen build bridges, jack hammer operators-dentistry etc etc
Why do you think so many pollies who were lawyers, abandoned law?
Well one reason, (applicable to Howard at least, low on the totem pole of surburban solicitors in his time) is because it was so much easier to bullshit people (including colleagues) than judges, for higher monetary gain and prestige. Howard wanted to be PM as a teenage misfit nerd who craved power so he could get even with the people he hated (arguable inferiority complex there). Law was simply a means to, shall I say, “Howard’s end.”
In my experience of the late 60s the first step for a young liberal (much less opportunity for working class Laborites until Whitlam came along) hell bent on a political career was to get a law degree. Not for the purpose of practising law, simply the first step on the ladder. $Sweety and some others are exceptions of course. The Ming was a barrister, so was Doc Evatt.
The point is, I’m not surprised so many pollies from both sides were originally lawyers. The “golden voice” in a law court is heard by so few. In politics, with Costello as an example, one can play the part of a hectoring bullying legal eagle, like Tom Cruise in a bulls**t Hollywood movie.
The “golden voice” transforms so readily from law to politics. In Howard’s case I would suggest he more represented “pox populi” than “vox populi.”
I agree with the general sentiment that Labor has been off to a slow and sluggish start to the formal campaign, but I don’t think that the “me-too” stuff is quite as damaging as some would believe.
Of course, most of it is an exaggeration by both the media and the government, but the flip-side of all the “me-too” talk is that Rudd is viewed as relatively risk-free. In other words, the public will develop an impression that a Rudd government won’t be doing anything particularly drastic, especially and crucially in the economic sphere, other than repair the damage done by the government’s complacency or incompetence in key areas, such as industrial relations, climate change, and Iraq. I suspect that this is why Labor haven’t been too concerned about trying to counter the “me-too” allegations.
Some will argue, as Costello has, that Rudd is therefore out of ideas. But I just don’t think many people will really believe this. It runs completely counter to Rudd’s personality – he seems intelligent, thoughtful, and frankly, appears like a person who would have plenty of great ideas for the country. I think that there are a lot of expectations on Rudd being a much better PM than he would otherwise portray himself on this side of the election, simply because he has to play Howard’s game for now in order to avoid the wedges and traps.
But in saying all this, Rudd needs to give additional evidence of the “vision” thing. Perhaps this will start with tomorrow’s debate, but certainly during next week, he needs to give some inspiring, emotion-laden speeches about the future of this country and the priorities of a Labor government. He has to start capturing the imagination of the public.
And this week is the week that Rudd needs to release a big policy, preferably in education or health, but he will have to get in early because I suspect that Howard is planning on releasing a big policy every week of this campaign.
It is obvious that Labor is holding back now so that they can bring out all their major artillery closer to the actual election date, but the drip feed of policy that Rudd was releasing earlier in the year worked brilliantly at maintaining momentum for Labor. I think they need to be VERY careful about holding back too much right now because the point will quickly come when the public get sick of the campaign and start to tune out. I would do some big stuff now, lots of ads, then slow it down a bit before hitting it hard again in the final week.
At any rate, be very CAREFUL about what you read in the MSM. There is a lot of bulls**t flying around about Howard’s comeback. The MSM want a competition because it is better for sales, but at the same time, I think they are having their last big push to try to defeat Labor. If it fails, then all those little worms will have to turn. The MSM won’t want to be seen backing a loser in the final stretch to the finish line.
“Well one reason, (applicable to Howard at least, low on the totem pole of surburban solicitors in his time) is because it was so much easier to bullshit people (including colleagues) than judges, for higher monetary gain and prestige. Howard wanted to be PM as a teenage misfit nerd who craved power so he could get even with the people he hated (arguable inferiority complex there). Law was simply a means to, shall I say, “Howard’s end.â€
One reasons Howard hates Costello – he is afraid he would do better and be more popular.
I agree with William. the likelihood of a double dissolution is high. I’m sure Labor will grab at it if it gets the chance and get all of its legislation through in a joint sitting – just as Gough Whitlam did. .
“Labor supporters don’t buy murdoch papers”
I second that. I stopped a while ago. I suggest others do the same because if you really want this government gone, then DON’T give money to the people who are trying to protect the government, and simultaneously thwart the democratic process.
This me-to-ism is a bit of BS. Rudd only agreed with Howard on issues we know Howard would wedge him on – not much you can do about that. Much easier and safer to smother the issue.
However lest we forget at the begining of the year Rudd introduced
Iraq;
Health
Education
Broad Band
Climate Change
WorkChoices repeal
as major platform initiatives for Labor. AND at that time Howard had absolutely nothing on those things – except an embarassing record. At the time we were saying Rudd was the best Govt we had because Howard he made Howard pick up on all those issues in a serious way.
Yes, Kina. The “me-too” is really an exaggeration based on a few instances, but the media have gone for it unquestioningly as if it were a general fact about Labor’s policies, which is typical of them.
By the way, your list should also include housing affordability!
I suspect the ‘me-tooing’ is because people generally agree with the Government on a lot of areas but want a change. That’s probably what the ALP’s focus groups are showing.
Another thing not to forget is that at every election people whinge about the parties being too similar. “Me-too” is not all too different than usual.
I agree, though, that the ALP needs to grab the agenda and suggest populist moves that the Government will not support.
Quick poll for seppies
If a liberal was on fire, on the other side of the street
Would you:
1. Blame someone else and run
2. Call for an inquiry
3. Call the Telegraph and say it was a beat up
4. Proceed to the nearest pub for micturation.
Woah. Too many responses.
William @ 226
Thanks for clarifying that – that will teach me a lesson to research properly before commenting on eras that happened before my time! I still think my ponderings of over-saturation are relevent… but then again, it is really difficult to predict results until we see the Senate makeup. I shall ponder on.
Darn @ 228
First: Can’t tell if you are inferring this or not, but I am NOT part of the Liberal cheering squad.
Second: No, I don’t have hard core evidence to back up my statement. It is merely my hunch and from discussions I’ve had with various people. I expanded on it in an earlier thread, but in these days of 500+ posts and 2-3 threads per day… it would be impossible to find!
Chris @ 229
An interesting set of figures – FF as one seat? I assume that you are predicting that Mr Fielding would get up – one suspects with a slightly higher primary vote – and that other candidates wouldn’t? It’s quite astonishing how quickly the party has gained credibility… there is hope for minor parties yet.
The idea that the Senate is so out of whack with the House seems more ridiculous by the day. I can see the advantages, but the fact remains if the libs just pull over the line this election, they will have six months to enjoy their majority to push through whatever legislation they fancy (assuming outgoing rogue Senators don’t start to misbehave.) If Labor win, they will be able to do pretty much nothing for six months – except that which has bipartisan support. The case for fixed terms is growing on me. But I’m wondering off topic again now, so I’ll digress.
238 Derek Corbett – I certainly wouldn’t pee on him. 😉
Max, Steve Fielding is not up for election this time.
LTEP @ 241
I know – we were discussing the outcomes of a double disolution
(from 229)
…we went a bit off topic : )
“If a liberal was on fire, on the other side of the street”
I would run over and try by any means possible to extinguish the fire, I would try to help, try to comfort him/her and hope that my basic first aid treatment would help before the ambulance arrives.
One fear I DO have is that this election will be very divisive. Howard has polarised the nation.
No matter who you vote for you are still worthy of compassion and respect. 🙁
Max,
My DD election figures were not a prediction, but an example, though a possible one.
{One fear I DO have is that this election will be very divisive. Howard has polarised the nation. }
Divisive is not a strong enough word.
My youngest daughter is engaged to a son of the local Liberal candidate.
I have voted Labor all my adult life, have had my kids helping out at polling booths for years and this afternoon, find my two youngest out with Liberal shirts and caps, letter-boxing Liberal propaganda.
Divisive? Some people just wouldn’t understand the meaning of the word.
Agree,245.
How many friendships and relationships have been strained by the Iraq war alone? Where we once happily discussed politics,we now tiptoe trying to keep the peace. For those like me, the small ‘l’s , speaking out on the asylum issue,etc., it has been a wake-up call and you sure find out who your friends are!
Ruawake.
I agree. I am suitably chastised.
247,
Agree totally with the polarity of the asylum issue and the Pacific solution post Tampa falls into that same category. I have Labor voting relatives who fell into the government column on that particular issue back in 2001. Because of that, I will no longer speak politics with any relatives outside of my immediate family (i.e spouse and children) in spite of the fact that I know that they (other relatives) are voting same as will I.
248, sorry Derek, was referring to Megan @ 246 …..
It seems News Ltd have corrected the earlier error about the Ex PM’s at Beazley Snr’s Funeral.
[Three former prime ministers – Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating – and one-time governor-general Bill Hayden were among those paying their respects.]
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22618439-2761,00.html