Before I dive into today’s glut of electorate-level polling and the picture of unmitigated disaster it paints for Labor, mention should be made of today’s declaration of candidates and determination of ballot paper ordering. I’ve finished labouring through the chore of uploading the candidate lists to my election guide, in the course of which I was unavoidably struck by one salient fact: there are far too many candidates at this election. The total comes in at 1188 for the House of Representatives and 529 for the Senate.
The former number is solidly clear of a previous record of 1109 in 1998, amounting to nearly half an extra candidate per electorate, and well clear of the 849 in 2010, a relatively low number thought to have resulted from the election being called three months ahead of time. The Senate number is still more unprecedented, blowing the lid off the previous record of 367 candidates. Remarkably – suspiciously, even – this comes despite a doubling of nomination deposits to $1000 for House of Representatives candidates and $2000 for Senate candidates.
Some might consider a greater array of candidates a boon for democracy, but in my view that’s entirely negated by the obstacle posed to the act of voting, at least under our present system. This is starkly illustrated by the metre-long Senate ballot papers that voters in the larger states will be required to grapple with on September 7, and the magnifying glasses that will be supplied in polling booths to assist in reading the small print crammed on to them. That will no doubt have all but the tiniest handful of voters opting for the above the line option, exacerbating one of the least attractive features of our system – the mass transfer of votes as dictated by preference deals.
As for the lower house, an analysis by the Australian Electoral Commission indicates that each extra candidate causes a 0.2% increase in the informal vote. If partisan advantage is what matters to you, it’s likely that this makes a large number of candidates disadvantageous to Labor. Labor’s surprise defeat in Greenway at the 2004 election may well have been influenced by an 11.8% informal vote, which was in turn influenced by what I believe to have been a then record (at a general election at least) 14 candidates. This time around there are 12 candidates in Corangamite, Deakin and Mallee, 13 in Bendigo and McMillan, and 16 in Melbourne. Notably, all these electorates are in Victoria, which seems to have the largest number of organised micro-parties – perhaps having been inspired by the example of Family First and the Democratic Labour Party in winning Senate seats over the course of the past decade.
So, to these opinion polls. There are 14 automated phone polls in all from three different agencies, with swings ranging from 0% to 15% and averaging 8%. This is enormously out of kilter with the national polling that was coming through before we hit a dry spell at the start of the week, which suggested a swing of more like 2%. So one might variously hypothesise that there has been a huge shift to the Coalition this week; that the polls have targeted areas where Labor is doing particularly badly; that there may have been something about these polls to bias them towards the Coalition, through some combination of their being automated, mid-week and electorate-level polls; that the national polls have been heavily biased to Labor and the automated polls have shown them up. The latter at least I do not think terribly likely, the truth probably involving some combination of the first three.
We have also had more conventional phone poll results from Newspoll, conducted from Monday to Thursday from samples of 504 each, which oddly target Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor’s seats of Lyne and New England. These respectively have the Nationals ahead 59-41 and 66-34, which if anything suggest swings to Labor. The primary votes from Lyne are 26% for Labor, 51% for the Coalition and 7% for the Greens, while from New England it’s 24%, 53% and 5%.
Running through the automated polls:
• Lonergan and JWS Research have both targeted Forde and Lindsay, with very similar results in each case. In Forde, the JWS Research poll of 568 respondents has Liberal National Party member Bert van Manen leading Peter Beattie 54% to 33% on the primary vote and 60-40 on two-party preferred, for a swing of 8.4%. The Lonergan poll, for which The Guardian offers great detail, covered 1160 respondents and showed van Manen’s lead at 56% to 34% and the Greens at just 4%, compared with 12% at the 2010 election. While no two-party preferred figure is provided, it would obviously be very similar to JWS Research’s 60-40. As low as van Manen’s national profile may be, JWS Research gives him a 49% approval rating against 19% disapproval, with Peter Beattie on 35% and 51%. Kevin Rudd’s net approval rating is minus 18% against minus 1% for Tony Abbott. The Lonergan poll has 40% saying Peter Beattie has made them less likely to vote Labor against on 22% for more likely.
• Longergan’s Lindsay poll, conducted on Tuesday night from a sample of 1038, has Liberal candidate Fiona Scott’s primary vote at no less than 60%, up 17% on 2010, with Labor member David Bradbury on 32%, down 13%. The Guardian quotes the pollster saying a question about how respondents voted in 2010 aligned with the actual result – I will assume this took into account the tendency of poll respondents to over-report having voted for the winner. I am a little more puzzled by the claimed margin of error of 3.7%, which should be more like 3% given the published sample size (UPDATE: It transpires that this is because Lonergan has, unusually, done the right thing – calculate an effective margin of error that accounts for the fact that the sample is weighted, and that cohorts within it have been extrapolated from sub-par samples). The JWS Research result has the primary votes at 57% for Liberal and 35% for Labor, with two-party preferred at 60.7-39.3.
• ReachTEL has four polls with samples of around 600 apiece, which have the Liberals leading 65-35 in Bennelong (a swing of about 12%) and 53-47 in McMahon (11%) and 52-48 in Kingsford Smith (7%), with Labor hanging on by 52-48 in Blaxland (10%).
• The other Financial Review/JWS Research results show the Coalition ahead in Brisbane (54.1-45.9 from primaries of 50% LNP, 36% Labor), Macquarie (55.1-44.9, 51% Liberal, 35% Labor), Corangamite (53.3-46.7, 48% Liberal, 36% Labor), Aston (63.4-36.6, Liberal 59%, Labor 29%), and Banks (52.8-47.2, Liberal 50%, Labor 43%). The one ray of sunlight for Labor is their 51-49 lead in Greenway, from primaries of 46% for Liberal and 44% for Labor. A full graphic of the JWS Research results is available from GhostWhoVotes, including some diverting results on personal approval. Bert van Manen in Forde and Alan Tudge in Aston appear to rate as very popular local members, while David Bradbury in Lindsay and Darren Cheeseman in Corangamite do not. And Fiona Scott in Lindsay, fresh from the publicity bestowed upon her by Tony Abbott, is easily the highest rating of the challengers.
@political animal/1198
You can try and blame anyone you like but the facts stand.
Don’t be stupid about blaming one person.
Puffy
Your bad feelings are misplaced. Just wait and see. 🙂
[I am fucking furious about the damage Rudd has done, to the Party and to the country,]
Save your fury for messrs Howes and the rest of the faceless men as they pulled down Rudd in the first place. As for not voting what a spineless copout.
@victoria/1202
Why you know something that we don’t?
Had a strange out of body mind altering experience today when I realised that, at the age of 57 now, I’ll probably be 70 by the time the next federal Labor government is elected.
Whitlam, Hawke, Keating, Rudd Gillard.
Life seems so short when measured in Labor governments.
political animal @ 1198: I understand that the AEC accepts MasterCard for payment of non-voter penalties.
This election I will be forced to preference the Greens in the HoR owing to the poor quality of candidates standing. I was hopeful of preferencing the sole independent candidate, but it turns out she is a former Liberal Senate candidate who has since declared that if elected she intends “voting conservative” in the parliament.
The rest are religious fundies, numpties like KAP and PUP, Liberal, National, or the dregs of One Nation, RUA.
Regretfully I have to conclude that at present it is very unlikely that Labor will win in 3 weeks time. The last 3 weeks have overall been rather poor for them. They have been putting out mixed messages. Most crucially they promised a positive message of a new way, but they have not delivered. People were hoping that Kevin replacing Julia would give them a reason to vote Labor rather than Abbott who many can’t stand. But Kevin in the last 3 weeks has generally come across as cranky and negative and too similar to Abbott to give people a reason to vote for Kevin.
Now if Kevin can turn the campaign around as Mumble suggests, there is a slim chance of Labor winning. But I fear the damage has been done, and Kevin will not be able to restore the trust he has lost. He will have to run the perfect campaign with almost no missteps from here to have any chance.
And, My Say, my assessment that Labor is very likely to lose in 3 weeks time is in no way related to how I will vote. It is simply my best estimate at this point in time.
Victoria
I hope you are right. I have seen little to bolster my confidence so far. If Abbott gets in I hope the grandfather of all tribulations bite him and the brain-dead fools who vote him in on the arske, big time.
Rosemour
[Had a strange out of body mind altering experience today when I realised that, at the age of 57 now, I’ll probably be 70 by the time the next federal Labor government is elected.]
Damn you. Now I’ve seen you’re website and seen the person behind your posts I can’t be a sarcastic callous responder to your posts. Why did you have to be a human being? I’m not.
Anyway I’m sure you’re wrong and a LNP govt won’t last 13 years. Big swings turn around, memories fade, and people do actually change their views and votes (apart from most PBers). To cheer you up even more I have no doubt that even my vote will switch to Labor in 3, 6 or 9 years, so don’t despair, you’re spoiling my Sat nite fun.
..YOUR website of course …
@Confessions/1207
I prob do the same.
Liberals ban candidates from speaking to the media or their electorates:
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1801719/Liberal-party-refuses-to-participate-in-community-forum
The Spectator.
Sorry, but Rudd DID have to be pulled down—government was paralysed because he had to see and approve of every decision no matter how minor yet could not make a decision to save his life!
Just remember guys, it’s not over until the fat lady sings.
Unfortunately, Gina Rinehart has donated heavily to the Liberal Party.
zoid:
I am reluctant to reward the Greens because they are opportunistic wreckers. But there isn’t much other choice.
zoidlord
I dont know anything more than anyone else. I just reckon it will be more than okay 🙂
The passes are not flat enough.
Players need to advance faster.
confessions
Posted Saturday, August 17, 2013 at 8:22 pm | Permalink
Liberals ban candidates from speaking to the media or their electorates:
—————————————————–
good to see our great democratic Liberal Party at work with its own form of censorship
Simon S
[Unfortunately, Gina Rinehart has donated heavily to the Liberal Party.]
Apparently the Libs have promised to fund a personal trainer for every billionaire.
Mick77
Posted Saturday, August 17, 2013 at 8:25 pm | Permalink
Simon S
Unfortunately, Gina Rinehart has donated heavily to the Liberal Party.
Apparently the Libs have promised to fund a personal trainer for every billionaire.
————————————————————
Mission Impossible
Another Essendon rumor.
Lots of Essendon players have lawyered up and will sue Essendon’s arse off if it’s shown they have have their health jeopardised, esp if there are potentially long tern complications.
Therefore Essendon is going to deny everything as they can’t afford to to admit liability to anything specific.
confessions@1213 – the hubris is disgusting, their probably all worse than Jaymes Diaz anyhow.
I was thinking, and a few headache tablets later, I came to the conclusion that even when Labor win Sean T will not go the NZ.
It will just be another broken Liberal promise…
At last, some good news.
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/labor-strikes-preferences-deal-with-greens-katter-to-boost-poll-chances/story-fn9qr68y-1226699033596
[Had a strange out of body mind altering experience today when I realised that, at the age of 57 now, I’ll probably be 70 by the time the next federal Labor government is elected.]
You’ll be DEAD before the next Labor budget surplus!!!
Think about that… over 30 Years since the last Labor budget surplus
[all worse than Jaymes Diaz anyhow.]
If they’re in NSW they are likely all David Clarke, ethnic branch-stacked specials. 😉
ST 1226
Very nasty!
@Sean/1226
So you suggesting that Liberals won’t be able to make surplus?
So Labor is preferencing SHY ahead of Mr X in SA.
We might be stuck with her again.
Had a strange out of body mind altering experience today when I realised that, at the age of 57 now, I’ll probably be 70 by the time the next federal Labor government is elected.
You’ll be DEAD before the next Labor budget surplus!!!
Think about that… over 30 Years since the last Labor budget surplus
Do you ever consider the fact that when the Libs and Labor have spent roughly equal time in charge in the past two decades, that there might be some merit in going into deficit to stimulate the economy?
Do you ever consider that Howard never spent a cent on Australian infrastructure and actually had to tax more than Labor and sell off public assets to make ends meet?
Do you even know how low our debt levels are, and how low they have always been, compared to other nations?
Can you even comprehend the fact that SURPLUS =/= ALWAYS GOOD.
This debt fetishism and ignorance about macroeconomic policy, especially when it comes to the virtues of healthy levels of debt really annoys me, because it is, quite literally, the reason we can’t have nice things.
“1139 Mick77
Posted Saturday, August 17, 2013 at 7:12 pm | PERMALINK
‘Mick77 – when you were a kid was your idea of fun pulling the wings off flies?’
Only if they voted for the Greens.”
Likely they do.
Unlike faux conservatives, flies would naturally understand that everything is environmentally connected.
[ST 1226
Very nasty!]
Not really… I’ll probably be dead before the next Labor surplus and i’m only in my early 30’s
Sorry had to EDIT
@Sean Tisme
You’ll be DEAD before the next Labor budget surplus!!!
Think about that… over 30 Years since the last Labor budget surplus
———————————————————–
Do you ever consider the fact that when the Libs and Labor have spent roughly equal time in charge in the past two decades, that there might be some merit for Labor in going into deficit to stimulate the economy?
Do you ever consider that Howard never spent a cent on Australian infrastructure and actually had to tax more than Labor and sell off public assets to make ends meet?
Do you even know how low our debt levels are, and how low they have always been, compared to other nations?
Can you even comprehend the fact that SURPLUS =/= ALWAYS GOOD?
This debt fetishism and ignorance about macroeconomic policy, especially when it comes to the virtues of healthy levels of debt really annoys me, because it is, quite literally, the reason we can’t have nice things.
Rosemour or Less, from age 27 to 57 you’ve had 19 years of Labor rule. More than half of those 30 years you’ve been wailing and moaning.
That’s over the odds, so under the odds for the next 13 is hardly the end of the word.
The only position about going to the footy today was overhearing a young person explain why they are planning to vote for Kevin Rudd and yes it was to do with SSM
Sean
Based on Tone’s public policy positions there wont be a surplus under a Liberal Government anytime soon so if the Liberals are to achieve a surplus where are they going to cut.
The budget has structural issues that need dealing with therefore the Government needs to do one of two things.
Cut spending or stimulate the economy to allow revenue to grow at a faster rate.
Both will require a more mature debate about deficits.
political animal@1170
aka – We have met the enemy & he is us
Labor build it
Liberal sell it to their billionaire mates
Labor have to spend the first term of office getting things like the number of doctors right, building urban rail, assisting states with road building, building hospitals, schools, investing in teachers, nurses etc saving Australia from a GFC, investing in public education
Of course they have to go into debt to make up for the years of Liberal neglect
and just think Sean T if I’d lived to be 100 in another life a coalition government would never have introduced Mediare, never provide universal access to higher education, superannuation, NDIS, NBN, PBS…..and on it goes.
In a coalition lifetime I’d go from womb to grave fending off my neighbours, who’d be trying to eat me. because they’d already have roasted their children on a spit.
This period is very useful indeed.
All the talk is “Abbott is just about a dead cert to be PM”.
This will really focus minds.
With all the volatility around the leadership change back to Rudd, it is foolishly wrong to conclude that the die is cast now just because the polls have swung fairly strongly behind Abbott.
Never forget this: the Australian electorate balked at Abbott even when confronted with Labor’s worst campaign ever – the one “led”, for want of a better word, by Julia Gillard in 2010.
This is the same electorate. The punters who harboured grave doubts about Abbott then are no less concerned.
So we’ve had phase one: Rudd was returned and there was an instant sense of relief that a genuine leader was on the scene.
Phase two started when Labor was forced to unveil some truly awful economic numbers the other Friday. That was bad luck. The economy has turned at just the wrong moment.
We are now late in phase two with Abbott all smiles and everyone assuming he will win.
Phase three is where voters really take another long hard look at Abbott once the commentary we’re seeing right now sinks in – that he really is on track to winning in a romp.
For phase three, Rudd would be wise to keep a low profile, continue to appear prime ministerial, continue to underscore the significant achievements of the past six years and continue to speak about transitioning the Australian economy to the post China boom era.
Then, once voters have revisited some of their deep-seated fears about Abbott in their heart of hearts, Rudd can move into phase five.
Phase five is a hammer blow at Abbott delivered by every front line troop except for Rudd. Remind everyone of WorkChoices, go very hard on Abbott’s hardline Catholic views, his longstanding anti-women problems, his Budget black hole, his intentions to slash and burn.
Meantime Rudd continues to operate above the fray, appearing prime ministerial.
AA
Very true, lets take education, if the Liberals under Howard did their job during 11 years and had actually invested in education then the number of people classed as unskilled would be lower therefore this Government would not have needed to increase places as much as they have and those people would be on higher incomes therefore paying more tax.
mexicanbeemer
Posted Saturday, August 17, 2013 at 8:44 pm | Permalink
Sean
Based on Tone’s public policy positions there wont be a surplus under a Liberal Government anytime soon so if the Liberals are to achieve a surplus where are they going to cut.
The budget has structural issues that need dealing with therefore the Government needs to do one of two things.
Cut spending or stimulate the economy to allow revenue to grow at a faster rate.
Both will require a more mature debate about deficits.
————————————————-
Your missing the mark. I heard Abbott say the other day that cutting business tax and reducing Govt revenue was going to improve productivity and help get Australia back to surplus.
The removal of the carbon price and the MRRT will assist Australia getting back into a surplus.
Because apparently when you reduce your revenue you end up with less debt to pay off.
‘Rosemour or Less, from age 27 to 57 you’ve had 19 years of Labor rule. More than half of those 30 years you’ve been wailing and moaning.’
Think about it.
You’re missing my point.
Rosemour the misunderstood, twas ever thus.
waznaki@1235
rosemona surrendered several hours after the election was announced and has been moaning ever since and will well into the next decade.
Thats free speech for you – you got to luuve it.
[Not really… I’ll probably be dead before the next Labor surplus and i’m only in my early 30′s]
Maybe you’ll live long enough to know what you’re talking about.
So will anyone answer my question? If Rudd were really going to democratise the party more, then why did he parachute in Peter Beattie, and kick out the preselected candidate?
Alias
[This period is very useful indeed.
All the talk is “Abbott is just about a dead cert to be PM”.
This will really focus minds.]
Except that the “period” in question is now reaching its third anniversary.
Mick77, Rosemour – Indeed, Rudd is no Hawke but then Abbott is no Howard, so if Abbott does get in I doubt the Coalition will be in for more than 2 terms at most. Of course the tighter it is on September 7th the more likely that is. Jason Clare could well be a good bet to be ALP PM by 2020, he is only 41 and a fresh face from the Rudd/Gillard years.
[The budget has structural issues that need dealing with therefore the Government needs to do one of two things.]
The budget revenues are now $50 Billion dollars HIGHER than the 2007 “mining boom” Labor keeps pretending is over.
Think about that for a moment. $50 Billion more in the coffers than the “rivers of gold” years.
But spending under Labor?? Well thats increased by $100 BILLION per year.
Labor are useless with other peoples money.