Panic stations in the Liberal camp ahead of Saturday’s Wentworth by-election, according to latest reports:
• The Australian reports that “leaked” (by which they mean “dropped”) Liberal internal polling has found Kerryn Phelps breaking out to a 55-45 lead, after being level pegging a week ago. Caution should always be taken with reports of internal polling, which is invariably selectively released even if not actually fabricated, and it is clear in this case that the objective is to scare potential protest voters back into line. Nonetheless, an apparent turn against the government is all too explicable given its performance over the past week or so, and is also consistent with the evident desperation of the Prime Minister’s thought bubble about moving the Australian embassy in Israel to Jersualem – an all too obvious pitch at the 12.5% of the Wentworth population that identifies as Jewish, the highest proportion of any electorate in the land.
• The reported movement in internal polling has been reflected on the betting markets, with Ladbrokes now has an unspecified independent a very slight favourite to win, from $2.75 at the start of the week to $1.70, while Dave Sharma is out from $1.33 to $1.80. Labor’s Tim Murray is out very slightly from $7.50 to $8. If you’re up for a bet, particularly a losing one, it would help me out if you signed up through the Ladbrokes advertisement on the sidebar.
• Evidently recounting complaints from the Kerryn Phelps camp, a report by Joe Hildebrand of the Daily Telegraph made overheated claims that a poll conducted for independent candidate Licia Heath a fortnight ago was an example of “push polling”. In particular, a question on Heath’s campaign for a new high school in the electorate prompted an unidentified Phelps campaign operative to assert, “if that’s not push-polling I don’t know what is”. It would seem the spokesperson does not, indeed, know what push polling is – properly understood, the term refers to efforts to disseminate false information under the guise of conducting an opinion poll. But the information in this case is not false, and the poll was very clearly a poll, even if it may not have been a particularly good one. Kevin Bonham notes that such a question may have contaminated voting intention responses if it had preceded it in the question order, but my attempt to clear this up did not elicit a response.
UPDATE: Now Greenpeace has produced results of ReachTEL poll that tends to confirm the picture painted by the reported Liberal internal polling – after allocation of a forced response question for the 2% initially undecided, the primary votes are 33.5% for Dave Sharma (Liberal), 26.4% for Kerryn Phelps (independent), 21.7% for Tim Murray (Labor), 9.2% for Dominic Wy Kanak (Greens) and 5.6% for Licia Heath (independent). Applying the remarkable results for respondent-allocated preferences, which finds over 90% flowing to Phelps, Phelps emerges with a crushing lead of 62.4-37.6. The poll was conducted Monday from a sample of 661. Respondents were also asked about their vote in 2016, and the results aligned fairly well with the actual result. Among the other findings were that a remarkable 66.0% agreed, including 54.0% who strongly agreed, with Alex Turnbull’s assertion that the Liberal Party had “been taken over by extremists on the hard right“. For perspective, the course of four ReachTEL polls to have emerged through the campaign has run like so:
Can we please keep this thread Wentworth-specific – the post below this one is still the main thread.
Better for Labor in the long term if Phelps wins rather than Murray. A strong independent could become entrenched in Wentworth for several terms, that would be very unlikely if Labor won it.
Thanks William. This suggests the previous on-line Voter Choice poll was pretty close to the mark after all. This explains the appalling dog whistles from ScumMo about moving our Israeli embassy to Jerusalem. So…. minority government.
Wow… you figure come what may there is a rock solid blue rinse lib vote in wentworth of 35-40% of the primary vote.
To end up at <50 2pp would be something. Basically, talking about all non-phelps preferences breaking 80-90% to phelps over sharma.
There are some fantasy peddlers from last week who think alp can finish above phelps and get 80% of her preferences. That delusion notwithstanding, one would have to marvel at how the libs losing this seat to phelps is even possible
Can we really trust something that conveniently would be in the Liberals’ favour as a way to scare off the protest voters?
Agree with William that scant regard should be paid to leaked internal polling. It does. however, seem the govt is pretty desperate based on its action in the past week. So, while the polling numbers themselves are likely not accurate, the real numbers must stink as well.
If they are run prime time TV ads in the Sydney market place (as was reported…. I am not in Sydney), then they are extremely desperate. TV ads cost a lot and to use them to target a single electorate out of 30 odd in the coverage area is just bizarre.
If you assume the motive was to scare the punters back the leaked internal polls might be close to the mark – the Government’s behaviour this week lends credibility to that view
Expat Follower;
Are you taking into consideration that Wentworth liberal voters are likely to more annoyed than any other electorate about Turnbull being knifed ?
According to the airport giveaway, the Libs are cranky that Malcolm has not done a robocall or a letter to support Sharma. He’s obviously got the champers on ice in New York, waiting for defeat. Who said he has no principles!
Do those who know the electorate better than I do think that the Jerusalem brain fart will change a single vote towards the libs? Are there any Jewish voters who would have been planning to vote for Phelps, Murray or others that are likely to change their vote over this? I suspect they might even have a net loss of votes from those who can see what a desperate and stupid thing this was to raise just for a by election. I’d have thought the “administrative error” of accidentally revealing that you’re white nationalists will cost them more votes that the Jerusalem thought bubble will win. If he loses (which may be more likely now) I hope Sharma finds another seat to stand in – the libs need more intelligent moderates, although you have have to question his politics and intelligence if he wants to climb on to the the fetid guano heap that is the liberal party. Wants to be PM I guess – bit what a price to pay.
what will shouty try today? I love that Wentworth reveals they’ve got nothing but “BOATS!” when is a tight corner, and they know they can’t use it. I’m guessing shouty will try “TAXES! UNIONS!” and perhaps some massive social infrastructure spending in one of the wealthiest and privileged electorates.
If sharma loses wentworth, Labor needs to push the memes “You have to ask – why did they knife Mr Turnbull?” “Perhaps they would have been better off with Dutton” and “The Morrison experiment seems to have failed” and “Call an election Mr Prime Minister, and let the Australian public, and not the right wing of the liberal party, decide who should govern this country”
After its embarrasingly incompetent performance this week, shaming us worldwide on more than one issue, the government deserves to lose this one. The Wentworth voters would be doing us all a favour.
Ladbrokes still firming for Phelps – now 1.65 to Sharma’s 1.90
The previous Liberal “leaked” poll claiming 50-50 would certainly be a way of frightening wavering Liberal voters to come back.
But today’s 55-45 is just telling the world that the Liberals are kaput and what’s the point of wavering voters returning to the fold.
Very true SF. The Jerusalem issue made them look like they in a panic and will do and say anything to retain the seat. And that never works well; It looks insincere. Even people who approve of the move will doubt that it will happen.
Plus the wider consequences happened far quicker then I think Morrison thought. And that also hurts them.
Clearly, the Libs believe that playing the underdog is their best campaign strategy at this stage. Releasing these figures at this time can have no other purpose than to shake up voters contemplating a change of vote.
These figures show a TPP of 22%. I’m not buying that things are that dire for the Libs.
If you think Morrison has had a bad week this week, how bad will it be next week if the Libs lose Wentworth?
“fetid guano heap” as a description of today’s Liberal Party……now that is one colourful assertion but on the evidence – especially the on-going “brain fart” public announcements by PM Morrison – close to the mark!!
I think the so called ‘Internal polling’ is ‘leaked’ for Morrison to claim a ‘Aston’ like victory after Wentworth by-election win and reiterate that LNP is on road to victory in general elections of 2019 like they did in 2001.
For sale.
“One grandmother, all offers considered”
Contact ScoMo.
Strangely Bishop remains long odds to be PM ($90 on Betfair). Seems the betting markets are in the mindset of “surely they wouldn’t be that crazy”.
Given the behaviour of the conservatives, a switch back to Bishop to save the furniture, seems quite plausible.
Pauline Hanson urging people in Wentworth not to vote for Phelps…………I’m sure Dave Sharma needs that like a hole in the head
Just returned from a spot of shopping at Westfield Bondi in the heart of Wentworth. My poll sample of one. I ran into someone I know who is uber Liberal, completely rusted on, rightwinger, liked Abbott, likes Trump.
“How’s Wentworth?” ask I. “They’re all so bad, I don’t know who to vote for”…so I suspect will default still to Liberal (maybe), but if the far, far right is wavering, the centre must be very soft indeed.
Sharmas job was to make observations and report back to his Dept. Our Embassies in surrounding countries do the same. The Dept looks at the pros and cons and advises the PM and Foreign Minister what they believe is best for our Nation.
Scummo, instead, has a chat to Dave and decides on the Scummo solution. Upset many Nations to get a few more votes in Wentworth. Who knows, maybe the target audience knows we have little or no influence over this situation. If you can’t make a difference, why throw in a hand grenade?
Do we have our own Trump in the making? yap yap yap Labor yap yap Labor yap yap yap
I’m not sure if there have been any recently reported primary vote figures for Wentworth.
However, if Labor substantially outpolls Phelps and she is just ahead of the other independents, her preferences may not be all that influential in the result. In addition, if her preferences leak a fair bit to the ALP the effect may be even further diluted.
We don’t really know how these 2PP figures are being calculated so they aren’t really worth much.
I think I might just have a shy $10 on Murray.
ajm
Guardian has just reported a Reachtel poll taken on Monday.
…Liberal candidate Dave Sharma’s primary vote has slumped to 32.7%. The vote of high profile independent and local GP Kerryn Phelps has surged to 25.8%.
Labor’s Tim Murray has also increased his share of the primary vote to 21.6%, compared with 19.5% in a ReachTel poll two weeks ago. The Greens’ Dominic Wy Kanak has 9.1% while independent Licia Heath has 5.6%….
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/17/wentworth-byelection-liberals-in-danger-as-vote-slumps-to-327-poll
“Plus the wider consequences happened far quicker then I think Morrison thought. And that also hurts them.”
Yep the Libs seem to think we still live in a 20th century age of iffy statements being widely reported overseas slowly, if at all. It’s all instant and everywhere these days Scott mate.
I think the electorate is now busy swapping baseball bats for chainsaws.
Latest ReachTEL has Sharma’s primary vote slumping to less than 33%:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/17/wentworth-byelection-liberals-in-danger-as-vote-slumps-to-327-poll
Primary votes (distributing undecideds proportionally):
Sharma 33.4
Phelps 26.3
Murray 22.0
Wy Kanak 9.3
Heath 5.7
others 3.4
“Others” split pro-Labor about 60:40 last time there was a strong pro-Labor TPP nationally (2007), but with Phelps in the mix may go 40:40:20 Murray-Phelps-Sharma this time. That is, the 3.4% “others” should go 1.4/1.4/0.6 Murray/Phelps/Sharma.
Greens went 87:13 Labor’s way in 2007; they should go about 80:10:10 Murray/Phelps/Sharma this time, that is 7.4/1.0/0.9.
This being Heath’s first run, there is no precedent for her voters’ preferences, but given her endorsement by the fiercely anti-Phelps Clover Moore, Phelps should not expect to get many Heath preferences. Nor, obviously, should Sharma. I predict her 5.7% will go similarly to the Greens 80:10:10, that is, 4.5/0.6/0.6 Murray/Phelps/Sharma.
So, the final three count should be about:
Sharma 35.5
Murray 35.3
Phelps 29.2
Murray would only need to carry the preferences of Phelps voters by 50.7%-49.3% or better, and he would win the seat. Given the tremendous uncertainty in determining Phelps preference flows, it would be without real justification to rule that out. Murray is right in this.
This is looking like a very close contest between the three main candidates. On these figures, any of the three could finish 1st, 2nd or 3rd, given margins of polling error and the possibility of further late changes of voting intention. And any of the three could win a final TCP against either of their rivals.
Anyone who is calling this race now, either in favour of or against any of these three main candidates, is doing so without real psephological justification.
I think they’d behave just the same if the overall trend of their internal polls was, say, 50-50 or 51-49 to Phelps – after all, narrowly losing is still losing.
What is nearly certain is that the “leaked” poll is the worst of the lot.
Either way, they’re risking creating a bandwagon effect for Phelps – plenty of the politically less engaged have no idea when an independent is in a winnable position and tend to assume that they have no chance, so if the news gets out to the masses that an indy is a real chance then that can convince many to hop on board.
ajm says:
Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 3:53 pm
I think I might just have a shy $10 on Murray.
—————————————
Get in now before the odds tighten. Because if the oddsmakers are not blinded by conventional wisdom, they should.
Well, if the top 3 really are that close you would expect Phelps to be the favourite in a TCP against both Sharma and Murray. The third potential TCP matchup (Sharma v. Murray) is harder to call though.
the one thing certain is the liberal primary vote will dive by between 20 and 30%………… this means preferences are needed for any candidate to win. The main candidates of the remainder who will poll in excess of 10% are Heath, alp, Greens (maybe) labor and Phelps… I think that group will poll 60% maybe higher. how that total is distributed is unclear….. but I would be surprised if ANY non liberal candidate polled more than 25% maybe even 20%.. This leaves the result open… but the libs have more paths for victory.Also remember in 100 plus years of electoral history the party has never returned a left leaning mp.
What a lot here are ignoring is how much more popular the “Turnbull” brand was in Wentworth than the “Liberal” brand.
A lot of Liberals would interpret John Hewson’s intervention as permission to vote Phelps, but a lot would interpret Alex Turnbull’s as giving them permission to vote Labor, given Malcolm’s silence in response.
And those 22% or so not voting Sharma/Murray/Phelps show every indication of preferring Murray over the other two, by a hefty margin.
Plus, for those whose baseball bats are at the ready, a vote for Phelps doesn’t really promise the blow to this Morrison Government that a Murray vote would. It is a mistake to underestimate the “time for this mob to go” sentiment in this particular by-election.
caf says:
Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 4:38 pm
And any of the three could win a final TCP against either of their rivals.
Well, if the top 3 really are that close you would expect Phelps to be the favourite in a TCP against both Sharma and Murray. The third potential TCP matchup (Sharma v. Murray) is harder to call though.
————————————-
Yes. I would expect Phelps to win a Phelps/Murray TCP count.
“Because if the oddsmakers are not blinded by conventional wisdom, (the odds) should (tighten).”
Michael, a sane bookmaker lets the flow of money dictate the odds – though some do take a bit of a punt themselves. The fact that Phelps has tightened so much lately, and Sharma has eased a bit, suggests that there was a flood of bets on her a couple of days ago, rather than that the bookies subjectively thought her chances had increased. (I wonder how much of the money came from the very smart Jews in the electorate betting against the man who is supposed to be “their” candidate.) If there is a similar flood of money for Murray his odds will tighten. If not, not.
Note update to post with Greenpeace/ReachTEL poll and a nice shiny chart.
The simple fact is that anyone of the Jewish religion who would change their vote as a result of the Jerusalem embassy proposal has most likely already submitted a postal weeks ago as Saturday is the Sabbath.
Thanks Will – VERY interesting little graph. I’m almost sorry I don’t still live there…
I fear that the Jerusalem proposal may be more driven by fundamentalism that Wentworth per se.
Having realised the fact that their primary has gone beyond any hope of recovery by the General they may try to fast track a legislative bucket list with plenty of legal grenades for labor.
Michael:
“Greens went 87:13 Labor’s way in 2007; they should go about 80:10:10 Murray/Phelps/Sharma this time, that is 7.4/1.0/0.9.”
I’ll be very surprised if Greens preferences flow that strongly to Murray over Phelps especially with strategic voting in the mix and given noises made by Phelps on climate change. Greens voters are not strong followers of how-to-vote cards.
Yes, Smaug, Amy pointed that out earlier on the Grauny. At least any Jew who is anywhere near to a strict observer of the Shabbat laws.
caf
Either way, they’re risking creating a bandwagon effect for Phelps – plenty of the politically less engaged have no idea when an independent is in a winnable position and tend to assume that they have no chance, so if the news gets out to the masses that an indy is a real chance then that can convince many to hop on board.
My sense was that this effect came into play somewhat in the election of the independent in the state seat of Sydney, that partly overlaps Wentworth. During his initial campaign there was a poll (IIRC he actually commissioned) that showed him to be in a good, albeit not clearly winning, position. That seemed to create greater electoral credibility
Smaug, re Jerusalem and fundamentalism. I have read that there is a sub-group of the fundies who believe that the end times won’t come until after the mother of all battles happens at “Armageddon” (Har Megiddo) so they’re looking forward to a Middle East war and in fact would do anything to help it happen. I don’t think Scott’s that mad – but who can be sure?
The strategic voting issue is interesting. If polls keep coming out suggesting that Labor could actually win, will people who prefer Labor over Phelps go for glory and maximum humiliation or play safe?
Jack Aranda says:
Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 5:02 pm
“Because if the oddsmakers are not blinded by conventional wisdom, (the odds) should (tighten).”
Michael, a sane bookmaker lets the flow of money dictate the odds – though some do take a bit of a punt themselves. The fact that Phelps has tighten
————————————-
Quite right. Probably why I’m not a bookie!
My post would be better if it were corrected to read “because if punters are not blinded by conventional wisdom”.
Just want to play some math back from earlier in the day…
Say we get Sharma 35, Murray 25, Phelps 25 (murray ahead by 1 vote), others 15.
If others preference 80:20 lab (is that harsh on lab?). We get to Sharma 41 v Murray 37 with Phelps’ 25 to distribute. Murray needs 52% of Phelps 25 to win the seat. I concede this is possible but noone could predict this with any confidence.
If Phelps is 1 vote ahead of Murray, even if one assumes a poorer pref flow of the 15 to her vs Sharma than murrays (why? But lets say only two thirds one third). That leaves Phelps needing 62.5% of alp prefs… this is a slam dunk.
Being pissed abt Turnbulls ousting i can see a bunch of libs voting phelps, some but far less voting murray. Counting on more than half if those lib voters who go Phelps to also preference alp over lib (when she herself has directed preferencing lib over lab)… its a massive leap of faith/prayer?
Its why i reckon any alp supporter whose immediate interests are maximised by Lib turmoil should advocate the strategy that most likely loses the seat. That is def Phelps.
Advocating a murray vote only to see him finish 2nd but libs keep the seat on phelps preferences… that would be the biggest kick in the nuts ever.
Be like Shorten. Run dead. Go Phelps (i dont even like her that much, but its outweighed by my desire to see this lib govt hung out to dry in every way)
Kevin, I’ve always wondered how many real people actually bother to vote strategically. Certainly, there’s not much evidence of it in the UK where they have first past the post (aka voting for simpletons) and people vote for candidates with no chance of winning though presumably many of them do prefer one of the majors over the other and are pretty annoyed when the “wrong” major-party candidate wins. Do you have any figures on this? (And your question gets even more interesting if the polls suggest that Labor might actually win but it’s desperately uncertain! That’s when Boerwar’s and Expat’s arguments start to make sense.)
Price is giving Hunt and Frydenberg an early run for their money as the worst ever environment minister.
Kevin, Good point on Greens voters’ non-compliance with HTV cards.
Of course, in a Labor-Liberal TCP this just reinforces Labor’s advantage, since it is very rare for Labor to get less than 75% of Green preferences against the Liberals, regardless of HTV. Add in a HTV preferring Labor and there’s very little to give Sharna hope.
Predicting a Murray-Phelps TCP preference flow from Greens voters is harder for me to judge, since it is harder to find instances where the Green bowed out before the most-supported Independent in Wentworth. In 2004, Green preferences split 72/17/11, between Labor/King/Turnbull. I think Phelps would be more Green-friendly than King, but Sharma less than Turnbull. So, perhaps a Murray/Phelps/Sharma split of 70/25/5 might be more like it. This would slightly boost Phelps relative to Murray, but slightly boost Murray relative to Sharma. Maybe a Murray/Sharma/Phelps 3-way of 35/34/31 or 34/34/32 instead of 35/35/30.
Michael
Do you think Phelps’ share of minor prefs relative to Sharma will be the same as murrays, higher or lower. I think “lower” a distant 3rd in terms of probability.
What proportion of Phelps primary vote will follow not follow her HTV and manually insert Murray above Sharma. 50%… incredibly unlikely?
If you want Libs to lose wentworth, have to vote Phelps. Anything else a hail mary more probably than not leading to a Lib retain