I have written a piece on the Rudd government’s first-year polling record relative to that of the Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Howard governments, which is freely available in Crikey. Elsewhere:
• For those with ready access to academic journals, the latest edition of the Australian Journal of Politics and History features a look at the role of the Senate in the Australian political system by Stanley Bach, lately of the Congressional Research Service of the US Library of Congress, and an examination of conscience voting in the federal parliament by John Warhurst of the Australian National University. The Australian Journal of Political Science has an overview of the introduction of proportional representation to the Victorian upper house at the 2006 election, by Nick Economou of Monash University.
• The Victorian Electoral Boundaries Commission has concluded there will be no state redistribution before the 2010 election, at least on the basis of “current information”. The present boundaries have been in place since the 2002 election. Hat tip to Tom the first and best. UPDATE: Further props to Tom for noting below that the determination rests on a definition of a “general election” that does not count the 2002 election, as it was conducted on the pre-reform regime when only half the Legislative Council faced election – perhaps contrary to the drafters’ intention.
• The Western Australian branch of the Australian Democrats has been deregistered after declining to challenge the electoral commissioner’s determination that it did not have 500 members.
First!
[I have a free for view article in Crikey today comparing the Rudd government’s first year ratings with Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Howard.]
Over the last decade or so it seems there has been a pattern of state Labor governments narrowly winning a first term, or at least forming minority government, but then following it up a few years later a landslide win when going for a second term.
My question is, do Rudd and Federal Labor’s figures in their first year follow similar patterns to the first year of those state Labor governments that went on to record landslides?
You know, like S.A. in 2005, Victoria 2002, Queensland 2001.
Are there any early signs now of the foundation being built for a second term landslide? Surely the fact they have improved their vote points in that direction, but are there any other similarities?
Surely the fact they have improved their vote points in that direction, but are there any other similarities?
Good disciple in the parliament by the government and a rabble of an opposition in question time is also a big similarity to how the state governments operate. Once the good discipline breaks down it becomes very difficult to win the next election.
My prediction at this remove is that if the Liberals stick with Turnbull, they’ll do no worse than 2007 and perhaps slightly better. Otherwise, they’ll get minced.
[My prediction at this remove is that if the Liberals stick with Turnbull, they’ll do no worse than 2007 and perhaps slightly better. Otherwise, they’ll get minced.]
Even if they switch to Costello?
Most of those state Labor governments won so convincingly going for a 2nd term that they basically ensured themselves a 3rd term.
If Rudd can manufacture that, then he will go down as the 2nd best Labor P.M. since Hawke.
I vote for minced, the Liberals have been very ill disciplined in the parliament and under the heat and pressure of a election campaign how they behave in Question time becomes magnified. That is with Uturnbull as leader.
[My prediction at this remove is that if the Liberals stick with Turnbull, they’ll do no worse than 2007 and perhaps slightly better.]
Thats what was said of Latham, with whom Turnbull is compared.
Noticed also a commentator seems to imply that you are a conservative apologist.
William, the interesting thing about your analysis is how fragile it makes Rudd’s polling figures look. If the crisis gave him a leg up, it also seems to set him up for a fall. The vulnerability is that the Australians who are currently optimistic about the economy change their mind about Rudd when things get worse.
The other interesting issue is whether elections are truly for governments to lose. It seems to me that very weak oppositions at state level have been losing elections in the last five or so years. Is your prediction predicated on the Fed Liberals continuing to behave as at present?
[Noticed also a commentator seems to imply that you are a conservative apologist.]
Which commentator do you speak of? 😀
[I vote for minced, the Liberals have been very ill disciplined in the parliament and under the heat and pressure of a election campaign how they behave in Question time becomes magnified.]
They do seem to be making a lot of first term opposition mistakes:
1) Not developing any policies that differentiate themselves from the government
2) Attacking senior bureaucrats instead of the government itself
3) Acting like children in question time
“1) Not developing any policies that differentiate themselves from the government”
Showson, it is one thing to ask questions in parliament and quite another to be actively questioned about what the Oppositions own policies mean for the people of Australia. Lazy oppositions find electioneering difficult if they haven’t spent the previous three years refining their own policies in the public arena.
There are occasionally exceptions to this rule when the media refuses to question the Opposition Leader in depth, Howard 1996 and Barnett in 2008 but as a general rule that is how the cookie crumbles.
William,
[
William Bowe
Posted Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 9:22 pm | Permalink
My prediction at this remove is that if the Liberals stick with Turnbull, they’ll do no worse than 2007 and perhaps slightly better. Otherwise, they’ll get minced.
]
I cast my vote for “otherwise” 😀
The LNP must be concerned that Turnbull’s honeymoon lasted a week and that Rudd’s personal ratings seem to have strengthened against their last best choice.
The Ace for Turnbull once the GFC created some need for action was supposed to be some economic abilities. This doesn’t seemed to have helped on bit.
I think I mentioned elsewhere that these past few months has been a defining time for both Rudd and Turnbull with Rudd I believe now being accepted as the ‘real deal’ PM with his various ’emergency’ actions. Rudd is now a ‘real’ incumbent. The polls show that people remain unsure of Turnbull and that many have decided that Rudd is preferable by a wide margin.
The main thing going for Turnbull is that everyone assumes that he will do much better than Nelson and assume that he would be a much better Opposition and Political leader. However, as earlier in the year, it has required the MSM to actually make something out of Turnbull and to undermine the government.
The assumption is I guess that the polls will close up near election year, because? I don’t know, it is just assumed. But the aura of Howard has gone so there will be no last minute drift away from Labor who will be the incumbent in any case and may benefit from that.
Rudd has been riding high for a few years and people continually think it is a honeymoon and will come down to normal levels, but he defies gravity. Maybe Rudd is representing something the people want beyond politics as usual.
Turnbull has yet to prove himself much different from Nelson apart from his awful arrogance. He will have to improve to make an impression on Labor who I believe at this moment are moving further ahead.
And I don’t expect the people to blame Labor for the state of the economy for various reasons in addition to the fact that it is obviously a USA caused event.
John Howard, the gift that keeps on giving (or taking).
Former PM John Howard defends $400,000 first year bill – http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24703555-5013871,00.html
One thing Rudd should do is give his ministers more exposure or at least increase the exposure of his best main bunch. This too is a glaring difference between the parties. Labor has a lot of depth. The Liberal’s are basically Turnbull and he is at the moment 99% wind and bluster.
Labor who will be the incumbent in any case and may benefit from that.
I think that is a very pertinent point, TP. The last minute incumbency swing to the then Liberal government has left a heap of vulnerable seats with minuscule margins for the Liberals to defend. Next time around the Liberals won’t have the advantage of knowing the date the election will be called nor the advantage of having huge staff which they utilized during the last election.
Indeed. Last election, polling was in record territory, then THE NARROWING!!! came when the election campaign was called and the coalition ramped up the economic dogwhistling. They are not the incumbents this time, if this polling keeps up Labor may very well increase their majority, in 2pp and/or seats.
We are in a rather bizarre situation however where the Newspoll satisfaction ratings (as opposed to Preferred PM ratings) of both leaders are over 50%. I wonder if Newspoll has ever recorded this before?
Congrats WIlliam, I see from your link you’ve been trashed by Marilyn. Surely a badge of pride 🙂
[Labor who will be the incumbent in any case and may benefit from that]
Almost certainly. Incumbency is a big benefit to governments, but decreases as the number of terms grows IMO.
bob @ 16
Would you believe November 2007?
16 bob, if Newspoll phoned me and asked if I was satisfied with the job Uturnbull is doing as Opposition Leader, I would give him the thumbs up. I am very satisfied that they are struggling so helplessly.
Another worry for the LNP is that incumbency factor may have been quite strong for them at the last election because of Howard. Thus at the end of the day there were a group loyal to Howard or just to nervous to change from him and the familiarity of having him around for so long.
I wonder if the constant 55/45 level for Labor is because of those who were afraid of change and stayed with the LNP because of Howard moved to Rudd once the ice was been broken. There no longer being a fear of losing Howard or of change there is no need for them to move back to the LNP. There is something safe and secure about a plain old Rudd and a dour and reliable Gillard. Competence and not charisma might be the requirement at the next election.
It also seems to me that a lot of people have been sucked in to accepting the MSM created myths about Rudd and, sprout them as semi-accepted fact. The do nothing, lots of review and pointless travel type memes conjured up by a desperate Liberal media.
We have been through this before but there was then a great list of what Labor had been doing and this is their first 12 months in govt for 11 years. The travel has been pertinent and important and cannot be said to be wasteful. And we have seen Rudd act decisively when the important thing was to display decisive action.
Strip away the MSM sledging myths and you get a fairly competent first term government. I think what people really don’t like or wish would change is Rudd’s personal communication style. They want him to sound more like a Hawke, Howard, Keating or something. I believe Rudd will develop a more direct and sedate media style as time passes.
Good point. But the 2007 election was unique. Both Rudd and Howard were popular. Rudd was just better (and still is).
I actually think Rudd’s communication style turns on the swinging voters, to the disappointment of the more rusted voters.
William
Why are you so sure that the Libs are better off under Turnbull than Cossie? Tip has been consistently ahead of Truffles as preferred Liberal leader.
Those polls were all conducted before Turnbull became leader, no? My guess would be that a poll conducted now would produce a very different result. I further suggest that rusted-on Liberals saw nominating Costello as a way to indicate their loyalty to the Howard government.
I agree with William.
What the Liberals need is a ton of hard policy work not a new leader but I won’t hold my breathe with this shadow ministry. They have spent most of the past year arguing who should be leader.
Yes, the polls were all with Nelson as leader. There might be a preferred Lib leader soon. I think after a few more bad polls with Turnbull miles behind Rudd as PPM, the preferred leader polls will favour a change to Cossie. Turnbull has botched the response to the GFC, much like McCain did, when it should have been tailor made for him. I admit his Shadow Treasurer hasn’t helped one iota, but I can’t see it getting a lot better for Turnbull.
There’s article by Christian Kerr that is well worth a read for those interested in what various Liberals say they are thinking. (You need to read carefully, because it is a little difficult to pick up when the Young Turks stop and when Kerr starts).
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24700742-5013871,00.html
The article is interesting because it accepts uncritically a number of lines that Kerr has been fed by members of the Young Turk faction in the Liberal Party. Kerr’s sources appear to be people like Morrison, Hunt and Keenan.
Apparently, Turnbull is surrounded by a band of young Liberal MPs ‘who have come to the forefront’. These are Greg Hunt, Steven Ciobo, Michael Keenan, Scott Morrison and Christopher Pyne. The Howard Government is declared dead. Howard is mentioned and thank goodness he lost his seat. Not mentioned in the article are the old guard of Abbott and Hockey. Minchin, Abetz and Costello get special mentions as being irrelevant and/or has-beens. Kerr criticises Bishop for not wanting to do the work to develop new ideas. BTW, if you want to know what happened to Nelsons leadership, it ‘terminated’.
But wait, there’s more. According to Morrison, the Federal Liberals are determined to be a ‘constructive Opposition.’
All the going is not smooth, however. Apparently some Liberals fear that Turnbull ‘will fall victim to his personality type’. Also, there is ‘no money’. Plus, the three reports on party reform appear to be stuck on a shelf somewhere. Plus, the Branch structure is hopeless (Berowra is stacked and Mackellar is moribund) and modern modes of politicking a la Rudd and Obama have passed the Liberals by. Stockdale’s Party reforms are ‘too ambitious’ but ‘the wily’ Staley should be able to concoct ‘a compromise’. Apparently they lack good staff just about everywhere.
Then there is a whole lot of ‘moral’ talk about how the economic stuff is ‘bedrock’ but there needs to be some work done on social justice and the environment. (You know, the Wet, Small L Liberal froth).
(Hmm, so Minchin, Abetz, Abbott, Bishop and Hockey are just going to lie down are they? Bring it on.)
What I find fascinating, is despite Turnbull being over 50% on Newspoll satisfaction, at 21% he’s only 5% higher than Nelson’s last poll on Preferred PM!
(Hmm, so Minchin, Abetz, Abbott, Bishop and Hockey are just going to lie down are they? Bring it on.)
If they want to be competitive in any election in the next decade they have no option, Oz. Stability is an important factor the voting public looks for and disunity is death.
Bob, Rudd’s approval rating at the time of Nelson’s last poll was 54 per cent – now it’s 67.
Excellent lead in post William. I don’t think people should assume the Federal elections will follow the State pattern. Despite his initial popularity I recall Hawke only just scrapped in a few years later (1987?). Of course, that was following the introduction of some unpopular reforms. This time around there can be little argument that what Rudd and Swan are doing is necessary, so I can’t see any backlash likely if they stick to their current policies. Still, if the economy does dip and polls follow teh pattern shown in Possum’s analysis in the lead up to the previous election, then Labor could lose a few points. That would still leave them in front of course.
As for the Liberals, much as Turnbull’s attack policy on the bailout plan has been foolish, I agree he is their best chance. At least he soudns like a leader, even if he doesn’t actually know anything about running the economy. Nelson and Costello look too weak, and Abbott and the rest are slightly too crazy.
Uh, Steve, that was Boer War. Also, thank you for the positive comments in the other thread.
I agree that disunity is death. The interesting thing is that this is the boldest attempt yet by the Young Turks to carve out some territory. The fact that they chose to go public, via Kerr, must increase the tensions within the Parliamentary Party considerably. The Old Guard is not going to like being bad-mouthed this way.
Did anyone get the full Crikey today? Typical for them to publish something I want to read after my trial subscription ran out!
This is what I’m interesting:
[1 . Banshee on a rampage: the full Keating text
Paul Keating writes:
In full at last: Paul Keating’s letter to former Unions NSW secretary John Robertson.]
The only shred of hope Turnbull has to hang on to is his satisfaction rating despite the fact that few want him as PM over Rudd. This is a hope but also a threat. If he starts to lose satisfaction ratings Rudd’s PPM may get to 80%!
As I said I think a lot of Turnbull’s satisfaction rating comes from many ‘assuming’ him to have sufficient competence since he had that rating from the beginning and it really hasn’t changed that much. His attacking Stevens and Henry were thus very silly and more likely to harm himself than anyone.
If Turnbull behaves in public like he did at the Press Club address the other day then it will be the end of him. A very distasteful person indeed.
The Liberal Party sinks to new lows. Rather than work on their own policies, they continue to criticise the Rudd Labor government, this time through… merchandise including a Rudd doll? How pathetic! It’s going to be one long road back to government. Another 13 years like the Hawke/Keating years would do nicely.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=671478
“The Kevin Rudd memorabilia store, a website created by the Liberal Party, targets the prime minister’s perceived character flaws through a range of fictional memorabilia products.”
Socrates @ 33
I suggest that Turnbull had an alternative strategy:
He could simply have supported a bail out plan ‘in principle’ as being necessary. He could then still attack the less popular elements of it, warn that it might not be comprehensive enough, warn that it should not be at the cost of going into deficit, and then chip away as the cracks start to appear. He appears to be bipartisan at a time of national crisis and demonstrates but differentiates himself in that he would have handled the agreed response more capably.
Socrates, I suspect you’re thinking of the 1984 election – Hawke did more than just scrape in, but he did have his majority reduced, which was a remarkably poor result given those first-year poll ratings we’ve been discussing.
Socrates, if the economic stimulus packages are successful in avoiding a recession, then the real hard work begins for the government of going through the budget line by line and making savings at the same time as slowly growing the economy again. This process will test the opposition to the limit as they don’t get the quality information that the government gets from attending international conferences and getting detailed briefing from central banks worldwide.
The opposition even now is flying blind compared to what Rudd, Gillard, Swan, Tanner, Emerson, Albanese, Smith, Crean and co would be briefed about on a daily basis.
“Socrates, I suspect you’re thinking of the 1984 election – Hawke did more than just scrape in, but he did have his majority reduced, which was a remarkably poor result given those first-year poll ratings we’ve been discussing.”
The Hawke Labor campaign of 1984 was a bit of a disaster though.
Krugman’s view of the British stimulus package.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/hm-stimulus/#more-1083
It is a rather silly that the boundary review legislation was messed up so that 2002 was not counted as a general election.
(and congratulations to me for bringing the non review up in the last Victorian thread)
Shows On @ 35 Here are some excerpts:
‘But instead, like a banshee on a rampage, you tore at the Government’s entrails until its viability was effecctively compromised.’
‘It may be a novel concept for you, let me say that the conscientious business of governance can never be founded in a soul so blackened by opportunism.’
“Now I understand, you are thinking about a transition to the Legislative Assembly from the comfort stop you are currently occupying. And that that transition, in the medium term, is about the Party leadership and the Premiership. Let me tell you, if the Labor Party’s stocks ever get so low as to require your services in its Parliamentary leadership, it will itself have no future.”
Worth the price of a Crikey sub on its own, IMHO.
Oh Dear, Hilary could be slapped down by the emoluments clause.
http://donklephant.com/2008/11/24/does-the-constitution-bar-hillary-clinton-from-becoming-secretary-of-state/
[‘But instead, like a banshee on a rampage, you tore at the Government’s entrails until its viability was effecctively compromised.’
‘It may be a novel concept for you, let me say that the conscientious business of governance can never be founded in a soul so blackened by opportunism.’]
WOW, COOL! Hopefully they put the whole thing up tomorrow.
So his blocking of the power sell off was just to help his own political ambitions. Why am I unsurprised?
William
my take may be alittle diferent in degrees to your summary graphs
Wondering whether there there is a graph using Primary votes , notewithstanding diferent levels of minor party suport over last 30 years
Not a fan of beauty contests as Hawhe much loved for long periods didn’t hav party vote intentions up in heights Fraser and Howard whilst not deemed pretty seem more consistent at vote suport levels
Hav been indisagreeemtn with most here over Turnbull , as I do not tink voters ar seem switched off him at all yet so given rudds & governemtns popularity he has done well
On those last 3 PM’s and partys raw figurres Rudd is on similar course for re-electon
yet Hawke 2984 and Howard 1998 got a scare so perhaps 2nd years may be more revealing
Why were Fraser’s figures so low? Was it because his government basically didn’t do anything? That’s the perception I get from reading things about his government.
What’s up with all the business leaders now saying we don’t need a budget surplus? Why weren’t they saying that in the mid 1990s?
Is it because they are – generally speaking – all opportunistic Labor bashers?
Steve @ 46
Where there’s a will there’s generally a way. I have heard it suggested that one of the reasons why at least part of the Snowy Scheme is underground was because it helped meet the constitutional responsibilities of the then Federal Government for the defence of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth could then invest without fear of the Constitution.
For Hilary, the obvious suggestion is that Obama reduces the pay of the Secretary of State to below what it was before Bush raised it. The intent appears to be to stop people using the opportunity to increase the depth of their snouts in the public trough. Reducing the pay to below what it was before she came into the picture clearly meets this concern of the founding fathers.