The Australian reports the weekly campaign Newspoll has Labor’s two-party lead increasing from 53-47 to 54-46, their primary vote up a point to 39% with the Coalition down one to 35% and the three minor parties steady, the Greens at 11%, One Nation at 5% and the United Australia Party at 4%. Scott Morrison’s personal ratings are deteriorated, his approval down three to 41% and disapproval up four to 55%, while Anthony Albanese is up a point to 41% and down two to 47%. Morrison’s lead as preferred prime minister has narrowed from 45-39 to 44-42.
The poll also found Labor leading 44% to 41% as best party to handle cost-of-living pressures. On this question at least, breakdowns are apparently offered by gender (44% each among men, but 45% to 38% in favour of Labor among women) and age (dramatically more favourable to the Coalition among the old than the young, as usual). The poll was conducted Wednesday to Saturday from a sample of 1523.
Also out today in the Financial Review was an Ipsos poll suggesting Labor is headed for a landslide win, with primary votes of Labor 35% (up one since a fortnight ago), Coalition 29% (down three), Greens 12% (steady), One Nation 4% (steady), United Australia Party 3% (steady) others 9% (up two) and 7% undecided (down one).
The poll offers two interpretations of two-party preferred, one of which asks respondents who support minor parties or independents to either state a preference between the Coalition and Labor or remain uncommitted, which has Labor on 50% and the Coalition on 35%, with the remaining 15% being those uncommitted on either the primary vote or the preferences question. The other allocates distributes minor party and independent preferences as per the 2019 election result, which has Labor on 52% and the Coalition on 40% with 8% identified as undecided. The accompanying report notes this translates into a 57-43 lead for Labor if the undecided are excluded.
The poll also finds 33% rate the global economy the factor most responsible for last week’s increase in interest rates, with the government on 16%, the pandemic on 17%, the Reserve Bank on 16% and the war in Ukraine on 7%. Personal ratings find Scott Morrison down two on approval to 32% and up three on disapproval to 51%, with Anthony Albanese down one to 30% and up one to 36%. Albanese’s lead as preferred prime minister widens from 40-38 to 41-36. The poll was conducted Wednesday to Saturday from a sample of 2311.
https://content.api.news/v3/images/bin/0f72194535b281a898545520a6c7b1be
Libs have been pushing this one around a fair bit. It just makes me giggle!
“Now in 2022 it has been 38 years since the last expansion, so, would it be the right time to expand further to say 14 Senators per state with another 20 or so house members as outlined in the constitution”
The only reason I like this is because it would stop the 3 Left/3 Right split you pretty much always get. Would at the very least make it a more interesting count. Suddenly more progressive states would consistently elect more “left leaning” senators and more conservative states more on the “right”. Rather than just trading the 3rd ALP for GRN and 3rd Lib for ON/etc
So what are the seats we can say with very high confidence will be Labor gains? Surely Swan and Pearce in WA, Boothby in SA, Chisolm in Vic, and Reid in NSW? Those 5 would get Labor to 74, which will be enough to form a government.
Bass, Braddon, Robertson and Longman all look to be very realistic chances of ALP gains, or at the very least are toss-ups. I recall commentary from Redbridge that the Liberal vote was holding up OK in northern Tas, and Archer in Bass may be a tough nut to crack, so I’m not sure about the 2 Tas marginals being easy Labor gains.
If the Labor 2PP does end up at 52-48 or even 53-47, you’d think there might be 1 or 2 less expected Labor gains on top of those.
What about seats going from ALP to LNP? Are there any at all which are high probability LNP gains? Probably not-Gilmore looks their best bet. Maybe Parramatta, Corangamite and Lingiari are outside chances. It’s hard to see the LNP winning anything further in Qld after 2019.
Any teals who get up in places like Wentworth or Goldstein don’t impact the number of ALP seats of course, but any teal gains at all from the LNP make LNP majority government very unlikely.
Two out of three debates are now done, the LNP campaign doesn’t seem to have got any traction at all. Albanese hasn’t been brilliant, but has avoided major cock-ups after his gaffe at the campaign start, he’s done just enough. It’s hard to see what could change the game from here. I just wish the clock would run down more quickly to the final siren!
South
I agree with everything you’ve said but you are obviously intelligent and rational. Bill was always tarnished over his role in rgr, albo was not. Iirc, didn’t albo shed a tear when he resigned to back Rudd ? The man has a heart and is a fighter. Let’s hope Albo does win back the true battler.
Having gone to the same high school at the same time as scummo ( different year), never knew the guy existed he was that unremarkable.
By all rights and on any front, this deserves to be the biggest thumping in history.
I’d be very suprised if Archer is returned in Bass. It’s not known as the ejector seat for nothing, and it’s on a tiny 0.4% margin.
sky @ #1902 Monday, May 9th, 2022 – 10:45 pm
Completely agree.
Revisionist
Yeah, I don’t do it ‘wrong’ mate. I am the only one here that has correctly predicted the last 4 elections, usually to within a seat or two.
I will concede Goldstein, in Vic… I didn’t have that on my early radar and Zoe Daniel has crept up. Still no one showing me the net seats needed.
I might ask you where you are getting your figures?? Do you analyse all MSBM or just one? How old is your data? You are aware that the ALP will need 76 for a majority in the new parliament… and your predictions are based on no net losses to the ALP??
There are 12 seats currently under 3% held by the ALP, and 5 for the coalition. If half of these change colour, then the ALP doesn’t have enough. The influence of minors is too unknown in most of those seats.., you can’t guarantee them to the ALP. On balance, the proportions would be broadly the same as they are now… ie, not enough net seats.
No one has shown me a clear path net to the seats required… without an amount of wishful thinking or anecdotal ‘I saw people going in to vote so I must know’… sheesh. Even the post polls were wrong last time… how can you ALP diehards have a clue who someone just voted for??
Griff says:
Monday, May 9, 2022 at 10:32 pm
As for the election, I sleep easy now after the first week. For me the interest is what happens to the Liberal Party post-election. Will we even see a shift in the Overton window?
———-
Me too Griff. I was very perturbed in week 1 but am feeling pretty comfortable. Not saying it’s in the bag, but starting to feel better every day. I think it’s most likely the Liberals will head hard right, especially if they lose a few seats to the Teals and are under Dutton’s leadership.
The LNP typically offers relentless “take no prisoners” opposition to Federal ALP governments. They might not land many blows for the first part of an Albo term, as with the Nelson and Turnbull Mark 1 eras after 2007. But I’d predict their extreme negativity will set the tone sooner or later with the willing cooperation of the media.
It’s pretty common for Federal ALP governments to operate in an atmosphere of siege for most of their existence. You try to change things a little bit- the people who are most invested in how things are will deploy their resources and energies into bringing you down. But the legacy of progressive governments even after they’ve been hounded out of office, is that some things are a bit better and those things are not always easy to reverse.
By all rights and on any front, this deserves to be the biggest thumping in history,
From your lips to gods ears.
Well I’m winning supervoter and I have Labor on 77
Bluepill @ 10:49pm
You’re making a fair bit of sense there, and I don’t like it. Pretty much what Kos Samaras has been saying.
Sorry that many on here choose to attack you when you urge caution.
@ Bluepill
I f you are talking about betting markets I have kept an eye on them at six elections the last four federal and last two QLD state elections.
I have found the seat betting to be the best guide. Sure it was way out in 2019 when it had Labor favourite in from memory about 80 seats but in the other five elections simply going as primitive as tallying up the favourites on the eve of the election came pretty bloody close to nailing the final seat count.
Indeed in 2010 there was a disconnect between the head to head and seat markets (never seen it since) head to head had Gillard strong favourite but the seat betting indicated it was going to be bloody close.
When I checked last night Labour were favourites in 79 seats in three of those seats they were very narrow favourites.In all those seats the Tories were second fave.
Tories were favourites in 62 seats in four of those very narrow favourites in only two of then was Labor second fav. Others were favourites in nine , one of those very narrowly and the Tories were equal favourites with the independent in Hughes.
Of course all of this will change if the polling changes but I think the current implied probabilities in the head to head market are about right given the data we have at our disposal mixed with historical precedent.
I can actually see a strong case for expanding the US congress in line with the square cube law theory – dividing up the territory smaller and forcing redraws of long established bad districts would reduce the gerrymander. You hope.
Considering the Australian federal map is slightly tilted towards the Libs right now (Labor needs more than 50-50 to win in all probability), a mathematical case for expansion of Parliament making the map fairer would be the best reason to do it. If that is actually true.
bluepill
“That’s it.”
Yeah, but I can just look that up and see that there is way more than 69 or 71. Like, I can just look it up.
Is that what trolling is: just lie about obvious stuff?
C@T
It could be that they are basically lame people, devoid of interestingness. Loads of them exist. I’m sure their idea of interior decoration is equivalent to raiding the $2 shop and giving everything a coat of gold paint.
Bluepill: there were plenty who couldn’t see a path to victory for Malinauskas in SA even though he was polling similar numbers to the Federal ALP. You may be correct in your assessment yet again and if so hats off to you, but Malinauskas found a path to a landslide victory. We will have to wait until the 21st to see the result but I’d rather be Labor right now .
Another question that I keep forgetting to ask: how does the AEC make decisions about redistribution?
Eg. the most recent redistribution abolished a Liberal seat, Stirling and created a very likely Labor seat, Hawke. Of course population changes meant it had to be a WA and Vic seat, but how does the AEC decide which seat it will abolish and where it will put the new one? Surely it would be fairer to abolish an ultra marginal and create a new ultra marginal, or if you abolish a Liberal seat you create a notionally Liberal seat in another state.
“bluepillsays:
Monday, May 9, 2022 at 10:49 pm
Revisionist
Yeah, I don’t do it ‘wrong’ mate. I might ask you where you are getting your figures? ”
I am currently looking at sportsbet but i am pretty sure, they way betting markets work, it will be roughly representative
Labor is ahead in the following seats currently LNP:
Chisolm
Reid
Bass
Braddon
Longman
Swan
Pearce
Boothby
It is closer in a considerably larger number of seats than vice versa
It faces ball park contests against non-Majors in 2 seats (Griffith $4.0 and Fowler $3.5) compared to up to a dozen LNP seats where they are either behind or their Teal opposition are within the $4.0 the Greens are in Griffith.
The current seat odds would probabilistically imply Labor landing on 80 odd seats and the LNP lucky to be above 65
Again, if you are “analysing” the seat betting markets and concluding they are bad for Labor than you don’t know what you are doing
@hazza4257- Yes, it is based on population, but there is then a massive process including submissions from all the major parties and anyone from the community to decide which seat stays or goes. Geography plays a major part, like for Stirling which had four seats surrounding it that were all under allotted so was an easy seat to absorb. Port Adelaide was scraped from SA a few years back in a similar fashion.
That’s a good point, Sky. As I recall, Tasmania expanded its Assembly in 1959 from 5 6-member seats to 5 7-member seats after a long period of the government being 15-15 Labor-Liberal (and aligned independents). Making it odd-numbers so that at least one side can be convincingly dominant would probably serve well in the long term. Let them stew in their own majority.
“hazza4257says:
Monday, May 9, 2022 at 11:04 pm
Another question that I keep forgetting to ask: how does the AEC make decisions about redistribution?
Eg. the most recent redistribution abolished a Liberal seat, Stirling and created a very likely Labor seat, Hawke. Of course population changes meant it had to be a WA and Vic seat, but how does the AEC decide which seat it will abolish and where it will put the new one?”
Have a read, Hazza
https://www.aec.gov.au/Electorates/Redistributions/2021/vic/proposed-redistribution/files/Proposed-redistribution-of-Victoria-March-2021.pdf
The Revisionist @ #1918 Monday, May 9th, 2022 – 11:08 pm
Labor is ahead in the following seats currently LNP:
Chisolm
Reid
Bass
Braddon
Longman
Swan
Pearce
Boothby
So if Labor take all the seats they’re favourites in, they only get to 77? Are there any seats Labor seats with Coalition favourites to win?
Also as far as far the head to market being people just reading the headlines and having a bet you could say the same about horse racing markets yet they are incredibly efficient which is why it is so difficult to win long term.
Whenever there is money to be made there will be informed people constantly swooping to pick away at any overs that appear, if you think the tories are overs get on.I would want 7-2 I reckon that would be tempting.
Thanks Luke and Revionist. I’ll have a read.
hazza4257 says:
Monday, May 9, 2022 at 11:04 pm
Another question that I keep forgetting to ask: how does the AEC make decisions about redistribution?
……..
The bare bones explanation is seats must be within 10% of the population average within their state and within 2% of the projected population 5(?) years on. This explains some of the strange boundaries reaching in/out of growth areas. Seats are then drawn with a ‘community of interest’ consideration set out in the legislation. The Redistribution Commission then starts from the borders of the state, working in, and from the centre of major population centres working out. For example, the obvious starting points in Victoria are Mildura (NW) Portland (SW) Mallacoota (SE) and Tallangatta (NE) and, in Melbourne, the confluence of the Yarra and Maribyrnong rivers and Port Phillip Bay. That’s why Hawke ends up in Melbourne’s outer west.
I would like to see an elector population of 80,000 (in 2022 terms) taken as normative for House of Reps seats, with a variation of up to 10% plus or minus to account for geography etc (e.g. seats with very low population densities might have as low as 72,000 electors / inner urban seats as high as 88,000).
Tasmania retains its 5 seats, NT its 2, ACT probably increases from 3 to 4.
The bigly populated states get lots more seats. We probably wind up with about 215-220 seats for the nation’s 17.3million electors.
This would require a 108-110 seat Senate – probably 16 from each state and 6 or 7 from each territory.
I want “1 vote 1 value across the nation” enshrined in our deployment of House of Reps seats, which is not currently the case.
The biggest winner from a 14 seat per state Senate would probably be One Nation, as they would be competitive for the 4th right seat (when the right gets enough votes for a 4th seat) in some states outside Queensland at half-Senate elections.
I know I should be confident that Labor will form the next government, but…
but….
I have that niggling doubt.
I’m reminded of experiences when, as a high school teacher, I would see teachers whose classes in years 7-9 should have done marvellously well. The teacher knew his stuf, was always well prepared & could explain well, yet the poor teacher would spend a lot of his time trying to quell the comments of one or two smart alecs, who usually managed to get a laugh at the teacher’s expense.
The laugh was the aim, but the effect was it undermined the teacher’s cred.
For many students, the standing of the teacher influences how much effort they put in. They do not want to look as though they support a loser.
And so it is with the campaign & voting.
Albo’s “gaffs” make it harder for some people to justify voting for him, even to themselves.
Morrison ploughs through & looks ‘strong’; Albo tries to answer the questions to which he should give short shrift, & looks weak.
(I know it may be after effects of COVID giving him fuzzybrain)
Just as nobody could prop up the teacher who struggled to stop the bad behaviour, so it is with Albo. He’s on his own.
Hopefully his latest experience in the debate yesterday has helped him gain the confidence he sorely needs.
andrewmck @ #1925 Monday, May 9th, 2022 – 11:17 pm
Cheers mate
“So if Labor take all the seats they’re favourites in, they only get to 77?”
Yeah, but more sophisticated approaches to overall seat estimates would use probabilistic techniques. Labor is closer in more seats than those it is in front in.
“Are there any seats Labor seats with Coalition favourites to win?”
None that I can see however Gilmore is very close in the bettting (Constance on $1,95 to Labor’s $1.80)
9 Entertainment continue to attack Andrews, now that the Palmer vote in Victoria will be substantial – implied at cost to Labor
Then there is the commentary that Andrews is unpopular in outer metropolitan seats (noting the Liberal Party do hold some of those seats at a State level, but the seats where you see the Bible Groups active and which delivered Family First)
Now the questioning of Redlich over Andrews giving evidence privately by Liberal Party MP’s when Redlich appeared before the Committee
Redlich has identified a misunderstanding (and referring to a reason) in that, for a Public Hearing IBAC has to satisfy itself that there is a reasonable expectation that corrupt activity exists
These matters have been before IBAC for a considerable period of time, including Public Hearings
Given the content of the Public Hearings and the time span since those public hearings, and Andrews being questioned in private (the media use “grilled” for effect) you could reasonably assume Andrews has nothing to answer
Unlike those subjected to public hearings
Branch stacking in contravention of Party Rules and the allegations that public funds have been misappropriated have been the subject of Public Hearings and responses within the ALP
Ditto the allegations re a property developer and where one public witness took her life
It is of note that the Council involved was a Liberal Council, with the political affiliations of those subject to public hearings identified
As is their want, these manipulators seek to play both sides of the political fence – and those attempts were detailed in the public hearings
Names such as Ablett with Liberal Party connections come to mind – and I recall a first term ALP member was approached and the subject of the public hearing (did she or her campaign accept a donation and questioned on any influence courtesy of that donation? It goes back a few years now)
I note that Fisherman’s Bend and other planing approvals in favour of 3 Melbourne property developers have not come to the attention of IBAC but has media attention some years ago
9 Entertainment persists – but not on the other matters it reported when Fairfax
@bluepill
I tend to ignore the ‘inside word’ from parties and I am sceptical of the markets, but the TPP is looking more and more like a 54-46 ALP win.
Outside of seats such as Swan, Pearce, Boothby, Reid and Chisholm, there will be others that will fall ALP’s way if the 54-46 result is close. Seats that aren’t being talked about like Herbert (ALP win in 2016), Tangney, Moore, Sturt, Flynn, Higgins, Deakin, Canning, Leichhardt,
La Trobe are all big chances to fall going by State polling. Of course ALP won’t pick them all up, in fact even getting half these seats is nigh impossible. But you only need 2 of these seats to fall along with 2 of the 50/50’s such as Braddon, Bass, Longman, Robertson and Bennelong and all of a sudden it’s a comfortable ALP win.
There is still a chance LNP could win a minority government, but a majority seems impossible with several seats likely to fall to Teal candidates. Outside of Gilmore and Lyons, it’s hard to see where the coalition pick up any extra seats.
Anyway, we’ll all know in a fortnight either way!!
In terms of the expanding both houses discussion, another strong argument is to ensure that Tasmania’s lower house seats do increasingly have smaller electorates to the rest of the country (the constitution requires each state have at least 5 seats)
There is an argument there that you would just use Tasmania’s 5 as the control mechanism to expand the number of electorates over time. Back of the envelope we must be about 90 odd seats short in the lower house.
max @ Monday, May 9, 2022 at 10:49 pm
I am hoping the lessons learned from the RGR government, particularly the destructiveness of timidity in the first period, would make a newly formed Labor government a more active one.
It seems some people just want to find excuses/justifications to be pessimistic … it’s a bit of an illness.
Go with God. Yeah, probably best to leave for a while… I feel pretty comfortable, way more than I did three years ago and I’ve felt that way for a while now.
Snappy Tom @ #1926 Monday, May 9th, 2022 – 11:18 pm
The current Act allows for variation of the number of voters in divisions within a State of +/- 10%.
@The Revisionist
That’s true, just going from the fact that Tasmania has never had enough population to gain more lower house seats in both the 1949 and 1984 expansions that it would be anything different in the next theoretical expansion. Although the constitution states that it would get 2 more Senators in such a case if federal parliament was expanded as such.
Kirsdarkesays:
Monday, May 9, 2022 at 10:09 pm
Something I’d be interested to know from all sides of politics, what would be their stance on the expansion of parliament?
….
_________________
Having just got back from a 700km road trip on Saturday/Sunday the day before “pre-poll”* to visit towns in our electorate. I say ‘absobloodylutely’.
I’ll end up writing a thesis on this experience one day when I have time.
I have a degree of sympathy (yeah nah) for our local representative. How can you really represent effectively someone 350km away from you?
Most definitely expansion is needed in the HOR.
Geez it’s interesting meeting people who are vehemently ‘never Labor’ in a seat who’s not had a Labor rep in 60 years and then will look you in the eye and talk through their woes of their towns hospital and we wish something could be done about it….almost like a ballot box is a place of dreams…
* a 2 week pre-poll from 8am to 8pm is a complete croc in this day and age. You want to know what ‘woke’ is that’s it right there. My Philippines colleagues today had 1 day!
8pm in country NSW on a Monday night is a joke.
I love the AEC and all that it represents but they need to to think about the wider impact on people who are doing their bit for democracy across all candidates.
* a few edits for readability not intent..
The part of the picture we are missing right now is a swag of seat polls of non Teal seats. Which is not the same as 2019 where we had those polls and they were screaming that the seats weren’t there. We just don’t have the data yet. The Teal seat polls point to an ass kicking but hardly conclusive by themselves.
Don’t feed the concern troll.
@The Revisionist: I really can’t see the public getting excited for more MP’s. Unless it received overwhelming bipartisan support the idea of spending millions on extra backbenchers just won’t float.
Any idea what is stated on the Constitution re number of members in parliament? I’m not sure what the wording is, I’d be intrigued to find out.
Arky @ #1940 Monday, May 9th, 2022 – 11:36 pm
There’ve been a few. Recall Newscorp published seat polls from a handful of marginals a fair few weeks back. It didn’t make for good reading for Laborites
“Lukesays:
Monday, May 9, 2022 at 11:37 pm
@The Revisionist: I really can’t see the public getting excited for more MP’s. Unless it received overwhelming bipartisan support the idea of spending millions on extra backbenchers just won’t float.
Any idea what is stated on the Constitution re number of members in parliament? I’m not sure what the wording is, I’d be intrigued to find out.”
I am sure you are right. It would need bipartisan support or would be a tough sell.
I think the controls in the constitution are
1. needs to be roughly half the number of senators as HOR MPs
2. Needs to be at least 5 HOR electorates in each state
3. HOR electorates need to be of roughly equal size (subject to 2.)
jt1983
Yes it is an illness but in it’s mild form a preferable one to manic optimism. It must be terrible to live life constantly watching ones dreams turn into nightmares, but I guess manic optimists quickly recover as they head off into a new delusion.
Luke @ #1942 Monday, May 9th, 2022 – 9:37 pm
From my understanding the Constitution only talks about the ratio of Reps to Senate seats, 2:1, it doesn’t mention what the actual number seats should be beyond that.
That’s also a true fact, that in both cases when parliament was expanded that there was a backlash against the government. In 1949, Chifley’s Labor government was voted out, and in 1984, Hawke’s Labor government had its majority slashed.
Just in my opinion it doesn’t feel right that such an evolution of our nation’s government should be permanently suspended just because it isn’t popular. Thinking ahead, that’ll lead to a place where we still remain at 150 seats in 2050 even though there’d be around 150,000 voters in each one.
The constitution sets the minimum number of Senators at 6 per original state.
@arky
I was under the impression that it is a psephology blog not a support group for blind optimists.
Going off newspoll, seat betting,historical precedent. Mark the Ballott and a couple of other sites William has linked at this stage I would give the Tories about a 25% chance of forming some kind of government post election.
An upset yes, a miracle far from it.You may think I am overestimating their chances fair enough, but trying to calculate it is what makes the whole thing so interesting.
“It’s Time says:
Monday, May 9, 2022 at 11:30 pm
Snappy Tom @ #1926 Monday, May 9th, 2022 – 11:18 pm
I want “1 vote 1 value” enshrined in our deployment of House of Reps seats, which is not currently the case.
The current Act allows for variation of the number of voters in divisions within a State of +/- 10%.”
The key phrase to which I object there is ‘within a state’. Tasmania has an average of 80k electors per seat. The 5 big states average over 100k. A voter in Tasmania has at least 25% (in some cases, more than 40%) more say in the House election outcome than a voter in the 5 big states.
I demand 1 vote, 1 value as a standard across the nation, not just with states/territories.
Arky – 1059pm
A few years ago some people at fivethirtyeight.com came up with an expanded map of a bigger US House and yes it had about one third of seats ‘competitive’ which be a very welcome change.