• Call it expectations management if you will, but Labor is sending out strong signals that it is in big trouble despite what the betting markets think (Centrebet continues to offer $1.18 for Labor and $4.25 for Liberal). Yesterday Alan Carpenter spoke of his party being in a “knife-edge political situation”. Geof Parry of Seven News has today been told internal polling shows Labor headed for defeat on the back of a 7 per cent swing, although two-thirds expect them to win. The ABC was told the party had given up on its most marginal seat of Kingsley (although local resident Bogart writes in comments that he has “received calls and stuff in letter box last night”), and is “concerned” about Riverton and Swan Hills (with respective post-redistribution margins of 2.1 per cent and 3.6 per cent, and a prematurely outgoing sitting member in the latter case), as well as the new seats of Ocean Reef (notional margin of 1.6 per cent) and Jandakot (3.6 per cent). The latter comes as a surprise, as Labor was earlier trumpeting polling showing it ahead 56-44, and should presumably have cause for optimism due to the Fiona Stanley Hospital and Perth to Mandurah rail line.
• Upper house voting tickets were lodged on Monday, and can most easily be perused at ABC Elections. A lot more on this shortly. The Nationals have predictably backed off from their threats to preference Labor ahead of the Liberals depending on the reception to its push for 25 per cent of mining and petroleum royalties to be invested in regional areas. However, they have put Family First and the Christian Democratic Party ahead of the Liberals, which could yet turn up some interesting results. Surprisingly, the party is fielding candidates in all three metropolitan upper house regions. Their lower house card can be read here, though it’s hard to make sense of if you can’t put names to parties.
• The Greens are directing preferences to Labor in most places where it matters, but are offering open tickets in Morley (where ex-Labor incumbent John D’Orazio is running as an independent), Mount Lawley, Pilbara and Kimberley (despite its female indigenous incumbent). They will preference the Nationals ahead of the Liberals in Wagin and Central Wheatbelt, but are yet to declare their hand in Blackwood-Stirling and Moore.
• Monday’s West Australian released further results from last week’s Westpoll survey, providing unprompted responses to the question of “key issue in voting decision”. It indicates the meme of Alan Carpenter’s “arrogance” has caught on, with 10 per cent listed as nominating “Govt/Carpenter arrogance”. Other responses were 19 per cent for health, 12 per cent for law and order, 11 per cent for environment, 10 per cent for education and 10 per cent for “cost of living/economics”.
• The leaders’ debate will be held on Monday, the day after the Olympics closing ceremony, and screened as part of an hour-long edition of Channel Nine’s A Current Affair. Nine will reportedly have to air it unedited after the event as it lacks the facilities to screen it live.
• Antony Green concurs with Peter Brent’s assessment that Saturday’s Newspoll should have put Labor’s lead at 52-48 rather than 51-49, and provides much detail on minor party preference flows at the 2005 election.
• The surprise early election announcement has resulted in a dramatic drop in the number of candidates, from 375 lower house candidates in 2005 to 161.
• Click here for audio of my appearance on Jennifer Byrne’s program on News Radio on Tuesday. Readers in the fashionable end of town can enjoy more of my media tartery in the latest edition of Western Suburbs Weekly.
• Joe Poprzeczny’s State Scene columns for WA Business News generally deserve wider coverage, so here’s an extract from his assessment in last week’s issue. I personally am standing by my existing assumption that any minority government will be a Liberal one, unless John D’Orazio or John Bowler get up in Morley and Kalgoorlie:
To begin analysing the possibilities it’s important to keep the number 30 in mind, because that’s how many seats a side must win in the 59-member lower house to form government … However, even if one or two seats in the ‘quite solid’ category tumbled into the Barnett dilly-bag, there are others outside the 29-seat category that could go the other way, that is, fall out of the Barnett dilly-bag into the Carpenter-McGinty sack. Consider the Barnett-led camp’s following problems. The first that needs highlighting within those remaining 30 seats is that four – Wagin, Central Wheatbelt, Moore and Blackwood-Stirling – are set to be won by the Brendon Grylls-led Nationals, which leaves Mr Barnett only a possible 26 seats remaining. Moreover, Mr Grylls has made it clear that he and his three lower house colleagues aren’t interested in being ministers. In other words, forget dreaming about another conservative coalition …
Mr Barnett, even if he does well, by which State Scene means if he wins 26 seats, would at best only be able to form a minority government, one relying on the four Nationals who wouldn’t join him in coalition. And it’s here that an entirely new factor – one that’s so far been overlooked – walks onto WA’s political stage. Let’s say Mr Carpenter wins all his impregnable-to-quite-solid Labor seats, giving him 29 seats, one short of being able to form government. And let’s say Mr Barnett wins the remaining 26 minus the four National seats, which is far from certain. What would that mean? Firstly, it puts the Nationals in a potent position to start talking turkey, as they say in the bush, on which side to support and under what conditions. Secondly, when it comes to offering the power to form a government surely WA Governor Ken Michael would feel under some obligation to offer the majority party – in this case Labor – the first offer of the Treasury benches since they’d have 29 MPs, to 26 non-Laborites plus the four Nationals …
Among those 26 seats are several that Mr Barnett is likely to have great difficulty winning, if indeed he even stands Liberal candidates. State Scene puts no fewer than six into this group. They include the three held by Independent Liberals – Janet Woollard, Liz Constable and Sue Walker. True, efforts are being made to coax them across, and he may succeed in one or two cases. But only a brave person would predict all three women can be counted on to offer him full and unconditional backing. This qualification may not trim the 26-seat number down to 23 seats, but it certainly means the 26 figure is far from rock solid. Moreover, many Liberals have been viewing the two provincial seats of Geraldton and Albany as set to fall into their dilly-bag. That, however, remains a brave prediction with their current Labor incumbents – Shane Hill and Peter Watson, respectively – far from easy marks. And there’s another problem; the seat of Kalgoorlie, which Mr Birney isn’t contesting. Although many see Kalgoorlie as being Liberal on the basis of the past two elections, that’s a brave claim since those figures reflect Mr Birney’s two performances. With Mr Birney now out of the race, and with sacked Labor minister, John Bowler, contesting Kalgoorlie as Independent Labor, it’s quite likely to go to him or Labor candidate, Mathew Cuomo, rather than to a Liberal. If Mr Bowler wins Kalgoorlie he’d be able to negotiate himself into becoming lower house speaker if Labor found itself with only 29 seats. And the Liberals are far from assured of winning Collie-Preston that’s being contested by their frontbencher, Steve Thomas, who faces a tough fight.
frank
you seem to rattle the fibs somewhat
keep up the good work 🙂
ps does your 5-10 seats still stand or is my 2-4 seats looking more likely
ta muchly
I aim to please 🙂
I think your 2-4 seats is more the probable, than my 5-10, but you never know until Antony Green calls it 🙂
Kevin, the federal swings in WA varied from 4.62 to Labor in Forrest, to 2.49 to Liberal in Cowan.
12 of the 15 seats swung 0.5-4% to Labor. That’s fairly uniform.
The small number of seats makes it difficult for the Mackerras cancelling to work perfectly. But its arguably more plausible (with a bit of give or take) when there are a larger number of seats.
hmm, Smiths Beach may come back to bite Buswell on the Bum.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/22/2343183.htm
Another “Straw Poll” from Perth Now.
Is Alan Carpenter in for a rude shock with the State Election results?
I think his reign is doomed
62%
He’ll be all smiles with a win
20%
It’s too close to call
17%
Total votes
Total of 839 votes
Unfortunately Frank that straw poll’ may as well hav said 100% think Carpenter will win or 100% think Carpenter will lose
In close elections such as i think this one will be , absence of key electorate polling makes estimates dificult to predict
Facebook Page for Colin Barnett.
http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=883415051&refurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.new.facebook.com%2Fs.php%3Fk%3D100000004%26id%3D9256860294%26gr%3D2%26sf%3Dp%26s%3D20#/group.php?gid=32525716342
Here are the results of the Miss Maud “Coffee Bean Poll” for the 2007 Federal Election, which has always shown a Liberal victory. (note, I’ve edited the quote to save space, but the full release and photos are at the URL below)
http://www.missmaud.com.au/TopLinks/whatsnew/tabid/64/ArticleID/51/Default.aspx
Various videos of the Liberal Party Scarborough campaign including the Candidate Launch for Liza Harvey and a Community Law & Order Forum in Kingsley
http://au.youtube.com/user/nihongo02341
Here’s another completely unscientific poll: the Miss Maud’s coffee bean poll, spotted at Belmont Forum this arvo. (F5… I see you’ve posted about it already Frank.)
Liberals: 230
Labor: 160
Greens: 140
Democrats: 40 (are they even running at this election?)
‘Other’: um, a few.
Nationals: a couple of beans, nowhere near the first mark.
A bit funny, considering this is down the street from Eric Ripper’s office, and I don’t imagine he’s worried about his seat. I tried those numbers in Antony’s calculator for East Metro (giving 10 to ‘Other’, calling the Democrats ‘Other’ as well, and 5 to the Nats), and came up with 3 Lib, 2 ALP, 1 Grn. Who knows, it might happen. I’d be surprised if the Greens get 24% of the vote, though.
I wonder if they allow multiple voting over several visits, ie 1 bean per person, or 1 bean per visit. It’s quite easy to rig if you go there everyday for lunch and the staff don’t remember you’d already voted, or it’s quite easy for the libs to pay people to go there for lunch or even to buy a cake.
Oh and I think Belmont Forum is also near to several old people’s homes/retirement villages who only discovered they’ve been screwed over by the Federal Govt since Nov last year 🙂
Belmont Forum is in the middle of suburban hell… actually Cloverdale, despite the name. Not a good place to be on Thursday nights. I went to a ‘community forum’ thing put on by Eric the Ripper a few weeks ago, that was mostly old people (plus me, token student, scarfing down all the free sandwiches and biscuits and cake and coffee), and they seemed mostly OK with him – small whinges like not enough 38/39/288 buses, trees on the verge etc. The exception was a guy of about 40 from Rivervale, who was whinging about the percentage of Homeswest in that suburb… “it’s not that I don’t like the people, some of my best friends live in Homeswest”. I think I’ve heard that line before.
Do you actually have to buy a coffee to ‘vote’ in the Mauds thing? (If so, that would definitely skew it towards the kind of people who would actually pay good money for that coffee… I get mine much cheaper elsewhere.) When I went by, the dish of beans and the little scoop was just sitting there out the front. I’d’ve put a few in for the Greens (because, hey, it’s how I’ll be voting), but it was 5.45pm, which thanks to a certain other vote a few years ago, meant I had to dash to get my shopping done. Hmph.
Here is an article on the 2004 Bean Poll from The Australian.
Here is an AM report on the Bean Poll and how it’s conducted.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s2100052.htm
The West Australian continues to talk down the idea that Labor is in trouble. From a news report:
From Robert Taylor’s Campaign Sketch:
If Labor “didn’t say” it, how does Taylor know? If nothing is working for Labor, marginal seat polling shows 7 per cent swings, tracking polls are continuing to trend the Liberals way (albeit with diminishing momentum), Labor is feeling “desperate” and they are going to lose “some” seats (remembering that their majority from 2005 wasn’t all that great) surely it is at worst a slight exaggeration for Labor to say “the Liberals would win the election if it were held this weekend”.
For all that, The West sounds confident enough about what it’s reporting that Labor’s tracking poll probably does paint a similar picture to last week’s Westpoll and Newspoll – perhaps slightly worse than the latter. The 7 per cent swing figure was probably selective – no doubt it’s what they were getting from Kingsley. The swing could still have been smaller in the other seats mentioned (Ocean Reef, Swan Hills, Riverton and Jandakot) without contradicting the ABC report that they were “concerned” about them.
Unless the West are talking it down in an attempt to tell the Libs that if they don’t pull their weight, they’ll be f*cked :-), but then again, didn’t Stephen Smith say roughly exactly the same thing 2 weeks prior to the 2005 Poll ?
On closer consideration, what Taylor is obviously saying is that the background information (reportable but not attributable) Labor is providing journalists tells a slightly different story to what they are saying on the record – in which case his reporting is not unreasonable.
Isn’t that always the way when you want to get your message out ? 🙂
And note that The West weren’t originally in the loop when the polling was first released – Taylor must be royally pissed off by that :-), plus Paul Murray has been getting stuck into Grahame Armstrong over at the Sunday Times because he was formally a member of the media team in Premier & Cabinet (though I’ve always found Grahame to be straight down the line).
BTW William, all of the West’s Campaign Sketches are now on The West’s website in the State Election section.
I think Robert Taylor is a bit too close the the Libs and hence he is trying to downplay the Labor polling which a friend in the know tells me is not an exaggeration.
Apparently the ALP is staring down the barrell of a bit protest vote and is trying to unwind it. If Taylor is undermining that it is to help stir and keep high the protest vote. Perhaps feeding the cynical Labor strategy.
I think that assuming the poll is correct we could all be looking at a Barnett Government so anyone who doesn’t want that better go get themselves involved in an ALP marginal somewhere.
This isn’t the greatest Governement in the world but the Libs have been in chaos for three and one half years and have no real coherence or ideas of what to do in Government other than GM and uranium – it would be sad for this great state if they slid in.
The marginal polling, or something similar, would probably have been dumped on the electors today via the local paper had they not been released by Labor on Thursday night.
Readers who have The West as their only source of election information must be amused at all the fuss over a seven percent swing against Labor. Based on the stories there the only surprise is that it isn’t seventeen percent against Labor.
The golden haired, all conquering Liberals who not only have a NT loss to fuel their crusade but also the dubious myth of different political colours being needed to service state and Federal issues are just, natural underdogs according to the latest from The West.
So poorly are the Liberals going that their tongue is hanging out of their mouths and they are slobbering, heat stressed, lame and exhausted as they stagger towards the finishing line. Even losing “momentum” according to the latest comedy sketch in The West today.
This is all rather tiresome. *Of course* Labor is claiming to be in danger of losing. This is how you prevent complacency and stop your base vote leaking to the Greens. *Of course* the Libs / The West are claiming the opposite. This game of “expectations management” should be well known to everyone here by now.
I’m with Adam. There are stories feeding on each other here. I came off air from a very localised NT election three weeks ago to discover the entire room was a twitter with what was the message for Labor in Canberra. If one Labor MP in Darwin hadn’t been offerring to put his tongue where it wasn’t wanted two years ago, he would have held his seat, and the vacuum created by the close result in Fannie Bay wouldn’t have left so much space for speculation.
The laws of politics seem to be following the laws of physics these days and filling political vacuums with political atmosphere. When I had this whinge with a senior journo this morning about how last weekends Newspoll had suddenly become the catalyst for an electoral surge against Labor across the country, they responded “yes but its about the atmospherics”. Such a Canberra view of the world.
Antony
“they responded “yes but its about the atmospherics”
maybe they are meteorologists and no one has had the heart to tell em to their face that politics aint weather forecasting.
the other theory was maybe they are hot air balloonists!
I can’t wait to see the headlines when we finally have a national poll where Labor’s 2-party vote falls below 56%. It’ll be bigger than the relief of Mafeking and about as relevant.
So what can we expect to see over the next fortnight from the local papers? The put away the binoculars theory because the Liberals have the election in the bag or the put the binoculars to your eyes and keep them there because it is going to be a close race theory?
After four years of one theory it is refreshing to see a glimpse of another.
The West was pathetic this morning.
Some giant article on the front page alleging some Ministers are in trouble for being called at witnesses in some police corruption probe
According to the west its a major embarrassment and will affect the campaign yada yada
not one single other media outlet has even bothered to mention it
SeanofPerth, it relly had a bigtime impact on the betting markets too. They are still quoting the Libs at $4.25 the same price as before the story was written.
I am surprised that the seats of North West and Kimberley have not been mentioned yet as possible losses for Labor. The word around the traps is that Indigenous groups will be keen to let Labor know that it shouldn’t take the Aboriginal vote for granted again even if it means four years of Barnett and Buswell to make the point.
The early election also means that there will be a lot of people not on the rolls. Usually there is a lot of work done in signing people up to vote a few months out. It didn’t happen this time and will cost.
Kimberley: not so much, since the Labor MP there is Aboriginal. North West should be interesting, though… Rod Sweetman, who used to be a member up there in the 90’s, is running for the Libs, and the sitting Labor member is retiring. As far as country seats go, I’d rate the Libs’ chances higher in North West than in Collie-Preston or Kalgoorlie. It depends how well the Nats do, too… I’m not sure what their vote’s like up north, but their preferences could push it Sweetman’s way.
Great tactic that. There can few people anywhere who suffer from worse political leadership than Indigenous Australians.
Today’s west was particularly odious but gives Labor an opening if they are smart enough to pick it up. Carps can come out all guns blazing as the corruption fighter draw attention to sacking D’Orasio and take on the West who are being outrageous by drawing Roberts and McGinty in on the basis of nothing whatsoever. He could use lines like you may not like Jim McGinty but no one has ever suggested he is corrupt. Or I have fought corruption in my party and got rid of D’Orasio now the West is trying unfairly with the help of the Libs to sully the names of people no one has accused of anything. An onslaught on the issue is coming from the Libs take it head on or it may bite. He can in doing so play up the corruption fighter side of his ternure which should be at the fore in this campaign.
Spudster, the problem you and the Premier have with your ‘Corruption fighter’ theory is that John D’Orazio was cleared of absolutely everything. No corruption to see there, and he had a lawyer that outsmarted the Premier and Big Bad Bill (who probably still needs lessons in the difference between cash and cheque) so linking him deliberately to corruption is ‘brave’.
So the hundreds of branch members and anyone awake and with half a brain really know the premier’s rejection of John D’Orazio was much more about factional in-fighting than corruption.
Nothing new to factional fighting in Labor, twas always thus, but please don’t give Carpenter any more credit than your average dear leader (remember Adam don’t readtoo literally – Carp’s isn’t North Korean, nor communist).
Claims in 2mws sunday times “newspaper” from Julian Grill that Brian Burke played a big role in elevating Carps to Premier
The Sunday Times is such a rag
I thought everyone knew Burke played the KEY role in making Carps Premier, it is hardly a surprise – think about it.
where I say ‘knew’ I mean kinda assumed …
187 jasmine – has this been proven?
proven? you mean like has anyone looked at the votes in caucus and determined if Burke was the difference.
Unless you were in caucus, I think proof is probably beyond us, but drawing conclusions isn’t.
189 jasmine – I’ll take that as a “no”.
well you can take it any way you like it wasn’t a very insightful question. If you had asked if either my understanding or my conclusion was that Burke was the difference I would have said yes. Proof unless you are in court on trial is a pretty silly concept.
For example have you got proof he wasn’t?
Dear Jasmine,
I don’t agree that D’Orasio was cleared of everthing. What occurred was that the Inspector McCusker determined that the CCC should not make such a finding against JD as it was not within its powers – he did not exonerate JD. What he did as I understand the events was as police minister was that he talked to his mate pasuale Minneti about his speeding fine – as I understand it Pasquale advised him that there was a corrupt policeman who could fix these things. JD, who remember was the police minister then called this policeman to discuss doing so. The fact that he did not proceed surely does not absolve him from this act. If he was fair dinkim he would have reported this. Either he was one of the worlds total incompetents or he considered acting totally inappropriately and did nothing when advised of potentially illegal behaviour. Remember the guy was police minister. His and your defence that he was cleared is simply untrue.
On Burke – we have a corrupt ex pollie whose influence has been destroyed by Carpenter and we consider believing the ex pollie over carps are we all nuts. This is vengeance and we should see it for what it is.
Carpenter has many failings such as naivety and overconfidence but he is about as squeaky clean a pollie as WA will get. I have many criticisms of his time as Premier but he should be supported for taking on the disgraceful influence of certain ex pollies.
I just don’t agree with you spudster. I don’t get how you draw your conclusions. I’m not going to argue.
191 jasmine – Not when it comes down to a politician protecting their good name. How easy it is to throw mud without evidence? I think you’ve shown how easy it is.
Looks like Colin is at it again, this time with a gas pipeline.
www2.skynews.com.au/news/article.aspx?id=261212
Sorry for the link -see if this works.
http://www2.skynews.com.au/news/article.aspx?id=261212
Well the ‘prove it’ concept is simply an attempt to divert attention from a relevant and fair question, it is not mud-throwing and the influence of Burke both before and after his ‘expulsion’ is pretty obvious to everyone.
I would ask you to explain how he became premier without Burke’s support. Even Carpenter has never said this was the case, he has simply stated he never sought Burke’s support.
That the Sunday Times runs it makes it that much harder for you to close your eyes and pretend it is completely ridiculous until someone you actually are going to believe comes out and says it.
Oh and my last word on the subject and a humorous aside when was the last time a politician had a good name?
“Well the ‘prove it’ concept is simply an attempt to divert attention from a relevant and fair question.” So now we don’t need evidence that something has occurred, let’s just bellieve it anyway because it fits in nicely with our bias. Lovely.