I haven’t been following the polls individually as they come out, and I don’t plan to do so for most of the upcoming campaign. There are other people who do this very well – in particular William Bowe at Poll Bludger, who has taken on producing a regular polling average regularly, as well as posting every poll.
A week after Kevin Rudd took over the Labor leadership, however, it is time to get a view of what the polls are saying about the possible shape of the upcoming election.
Most polls have had a very close race – some have the Coalition in the lead, and others Labor, but never by more than a couple of points.
We have no idea whether these numbers reflect the final race, or if they are just a boost in support for Labor. As Peter Brent at Mumble has clearly spelled out, polls are particularly unreliable immediately in the case of a new leader. New leaders regularly gain a boost, and it is unlikely to last. Polls also don’t reflect the five-week campaign that precedes election day. We don’t know whether support for either Rudd or Abbott will hold up in the face of the scrutiny and attacks of a campaign.
The most interesting element of the polls can be seen in the state-by-state breakdowns. Scott Steel at Pollytics has produced an average of all the state breakdowns in the five mainland states in polls conducted since Kevin Rudd won the Labor leadership.
They suggest a country where voters are swinging in different directions in different states, and suggest that, if the final election result saw another virtual tie in the national two-party-preferred vote, this would likely result in quite a few seats changing hands, with different states swinging in both directions.
Labor’s vote is substantially up in Queensland, and is down in Victoria and South Australia. Steel estimates that these figures, on a state-based uniform swing, would see Labor win a narrow majority despite losing the national two-party-preferred vote.
This analysis doesn’t tell us what is going to happen at the elections: the polls could well change in either direction. But it does tell us that even a close election result would be very different to the close election result in 2010: it could see a majority formed by either side of politics. It also tells us that the large number of marginal seats in Queensland means that this state could be decisive in a close election.
The immediate problem I see with that analysis is that it arbitrarily stops showing seats at a 7% swing, while considering swings considerably larger than that once the state level swings are taken into account.
Great post. It is very early days, but my initial thoughts are as follows.
Labor in QLD will have a net gain of seats. They lost 7 in QLD at the last election. It is probably unrealistic that they would get a net 7 back, but it is possible. It could be at least a few. It could be as many as 8. Seats may go both ways in QLD.
I suspect that Labor will do quite poorly in SA and also in VIC. SA tends to swing quite a lot, so it would not surprise me if a handful of seats are won by the Coalition there. VIC could also swing much more than is expected. In 2010, Labor almost had its highest ever 2PP Federal vote in VIC of 55.31%. This will not be repeated and it could actually be less than 50% given that Gillard (the local) is no longer PM (however, VICs are less parochial than QLDers). Also, TAS could still lose seats for the ALP, some of which is due to a deeply unpopular State Government (i.e. ALP/GRN alliance). In WA, the jury is out. Labor could pick up a seat or two again due to a large Coaltiion vote in WA at the last election, but Labor strategists should be concerned about Perth.
So for me, NSW is the key state. I have said for a while that whoever wins the 2PP vote in NSW will win the election. At the last election, the ALP won 48.84% of the 2PP in NSW and secured approximately 65% of the seats. This is unlikely to be repeated. In other words, if Labor get 48.84%, they will lose seats on a net basis. The polls seem to be indicating that Rudd Labor are at about 47% in NSW initially. I suspect if that is what happens on election day, Labor will lose around 5 seats in NSW and that would impact on their ability to form a government. Put another way, relying on the pendulum in NSW to determine seat outcomes is fraught with danger given most of the marginal NSW seats are Labor held (i.e. 3 Coaltion seats under 5% and 9 Labor ones if you include Dobell (5.1% margin) given loss of the MP).
I’ll stick with the prediction I have always made. Whoever wins the 2PP vote in NSW will form the next Government. History suggests this to be the case and it is rare for it to be otherwise.
This election will be the most interesting election and will be unpredictable right across the country. As it stands, the coalition are on 72 and the ALP on 71 OTH: 7
In NSW labor is doing stronger then last week, but at the moment I’d say many in western sydney are now undecided. I can see Greenway, Lindsay going Banks and Reid being very close liberal gains. Mcmahon also being on a knife edge but labor probably a few points ahead. The liberals should also gain Dobell but not Robertson and fall short in Eden-Monaro and Newcastle. The Nats should also fall short in page but will easily pick up New England and Lynne. Labor will be in strongly in Gilmore with Gash gone and Macquarie with much liberal focus going to wrap up Lindsay and Reid. Bennelong will be closer but should stay with the libs unless labor changes candidates.
This would see labor lose 4 but gain 2 and the coalition gain 7 but lose 2. Coalition: 77 ALP: 69 OTH: 4
In QLD, Rudd will be welcomed back with open arms with labor to gain Brisbane, Longman, Dawson, Flynn and Forde. Labor should sneak across the line in Herbert and Bonner. Labor could also gain, if a strong campaign in particular seats, Dickson and possibly Fisher where if the Green vote holds like it did at the state elections, labor increases its primary and the libs vote decreases.
This would see labor gain 8 seats, but the LNP at this stage would gain Fisher but I’d need to see polling to suggest otherwise and I have no real confidence in Fisher for the lnp. Coalition: 70 ALP: 77 OTH: 3
Victoria won’t be as friendly to labor but should still see the 2PP in labors favour. With the Mallee deal, labor should gain Melbourne with the libs possible gain in Mallee. Labor could potentially lose two in Deakin and the libs sneaking home in Corangamite. La Trobe will have a very rare sophmore surge for a labor MP in the country. McEwen will probably also be a marginal labor and will have one of the biggest labor held swings in the state. I’d say Indi will hold for the libs but i think that might change closer to the election.
This puts labor gaining a seat but losing 2, the coaltion gaining 2. Coalition: 72 and the ALP: 76 OTH: 2
In SA, there will be a swing against labor but only to hold Hindmarsh unknown for 20 more minutes then 2010. No change and I haven’t seen anything to suggest Boothby will be in play (might be different closer to the election) so no changes Coalition: 72 ALP: 76 OTH:2
In WA, there will be chances for labor to gain Hasluck and possibly Swan but Canning should hold (its only marginal because of MacTiernan running last year) all three labor seats should hold. And the Nats will lose their only seat with the libs to gain O’Connor and be in no trouble in Durack.
ALP gaining 2. ALP: 78 Coalition: 70 OTH: 2
In Tas, Bass your traditional marginal might go along with Braddon but Braddon is salvagable. Denison will now be interesting, Wilkie won it at third and was propelled to second by the greens. The greens will probably preference labor and because the ALP vote fell significantly, its unlikely to do the same (The 2010 ALP candidate took the seat for granted). As long as the labor vote holds and the Greens vote doenst decrease by more than 4% then it is a possible labor gain but at this stage not confident. Lib gain 2, ALP lose 2. Coalition: 72 ALP: 76 OTH: 2
And finally in the terretories, ALP should hold all in ACT. I think the NT we won’t truly know till votes are counted but I’d say labor will hold Lingiari (using the terretory election is a bad indicator) and the CLP in darwin has probably poisoned their brand and credibiluty so ALP to hold all terretory seats
Coalition: 71 ALP: 77 OTH: 2
Yes NSW is crucial but so is every other state and even the terretories. This election should come down to the wire but i suspect there will be much change between now and the date but I agree with Morgan polling in tipping a slight labor majority
Put TAS down as Lib gain 3 as they will pick up Lyons. The only hold will be Franklin.
As long as Dick Adams runs, he will retain it, he may sweat on the results but should retain it by about 3-4%
Without bothering to check Steel’s analysis or restrict myself to uniform swings, his assertion—a tie means a narrow Labor win—at least has history behind it. Even a very narrow 2PP loss by the governing party tends to result in the party returning with a majority. For recent examples, look to 1990 and 1998. Keating won 52.7% of the seats with 49.9% of 2PP, and Howard won 54% of seats on 49%. Of course, in both cases, the government had won a majority of both measures in the preceding election (though Keating took only 50.77% 2PP in 1987), so the fact we are coming off a virtual tie with no majority of seats for either side may make the historical comparison useless. And “tends to” is not “always”; after all, the governing party did not win a majority on 50.1% in 2010.
Observer – way too early to make those sorts of seat predictions in my view. We don’t even know when the election is going to be called for God’s sake. There are at least 3 seats you have nominated that cannot be correct and won’t be. But I’m not gonna give the ALP a heads up though. I’ve been in trouble for that in the past.
The biggest problem for Labor in this election is threefold:
1. lack of funds – business has given it all to the Libs and the Unions aren’t flush with cash. This is the first time in about 4 elections that this has been the case.
2. lack of manpower as compared to the Libs. This is the extraordinary thing. Their biggest problem is that because they have been smashed so hard in QLD and NSW at a State level, many of their members/ex-employees have walked so they don’t have the firepower the Libs have on the ground. Membership levels in the ALP are falling, whereas, in the LP membership is currently rising.
3. Internal instability – I know of two Labor stalwarts in a particular seat that are not going to help out on election day given what happened to Gillard. The Libs are much more united in their cause, regardless of the popularity or otherwise of the leader.
Observer, you may be correct in the end outcome, but way too early to predict the next 8 weeks.
Like i said DB this if an election were now, thats what I think. If you want to talk about early maybe you should let the libs aswell as all parties know who spend thousands on internal polling.
I agree the labor party is lacking in funds it seems with big business buying a string off the Abbott puppet. But never underestimate the strength of the union both financially and with human resources. As I’ve said before this election won’t be one on pamphlets and meaningless slogans. Thats the libs big problem, now that they have the most money they’ve had there going down a path that use to work decades ago but not now. People see it as a cliche and just want something that they can engage with, thats where labor’s biggest asset comes….Kevin Rudd
It really depends on what you would say about manpower. The state elections have caused a damp spirit among labor supporters but in regards to state elections, they don’t carry the same mood federal ones will. Barry and Campbell were both the image of change to something people were sick of, they were able to communicate that message (not so much now), but it worked. The ALP have great things to fight for Gonski, NBN, NDIS, Carbon Pricing, Health and so much more. There is a track record which will connect with people and motivate people (as opposed to the state govs). Also Kevin connected with some of the crucial age groups and people will be happy to wear KRudd tshirts, even if there not members (Same happened with Garrett and KJones in Ashgrove) and having that presence can be positive for the party’s prospects in a particular seat
Yes the ALP will lose some people because of the replacement of leadership, but I can assure you there are many flocking back to labor with Kevin back, even willing to campaign on a weekly basis but the majority of people were disgusted by the way Rudd was ousted and now they believe a wrong has been corrected.
Aaaand you could atleast name the state/s where I’m ‘wrong’
Observer,
You should never underestimate the power of meaningless slogans. Also, I’m a little surprised by your list. Carbon pricing isn’t exactly popular. NDIS is a weak achievement since it was Gillard’s and was supported by the Coalition. NBN is massively over budget (5 bil vs. 90 bil). Gonski is a mixed bag as it takes a huge swipe out of higher ed, something that may blunt its effectiveness as a campaign tool. Worse, Labor has failed to effectively trumpet its successes over the past three years, and it is very, very difficult to make up for that.
Ultimately, Labor has to win the argument on the economy and the deficit. Given its failure to manage expectations about the deficit, the latter is a hard thing to do. Not impossible, but definitely not easy. Fortunately for Labor, the economic argument, which is easier to make, is more important than the deficit argument.
RichR,
The time for meaningless slogans have ended I assure you they won’t work, especially against Rudd. Abbotts plan to scrap carbon pricing is now opposed by a majority of Australians. I’m pretty disappointed that you would say NDIS is a weak achievement, I know you are politically affiliated but that is a shocking thing to say. So many conservatives I talk to say good on labor for finally doing something that should have been done ages ago and I’m really proud that labor has finally done it and so happy for the lives it will change, I’m disgusted by the statement that its weak. NBN is favoured by the majority of Australians and the coalitions plan is pathetic and useless thats what alot of Australians see. Yes it is disappointing that Gonski takes money out of higher education but Rudd is revisiting that and alot of people give a gonski, especially in those crucial suburban seats. The higher education really effects seats like Grayndler and Melbourne which should be held by Labor.
Ultimately, the economy and defecit is slipping away as an argument for the coalition. Rudd is offering an opposition leaders dream to debate on the issue they want. Abbott is refusing to debate the economy, immigration and debt. It looks weak for the coalition and sends a message that they are running scared. This will be a weakness highlighted by the ALP in seats across the country
I’m not sure where you get the idea that “the time for meaningless slogans have ended”. They work because of human nature. I’m also not sure where you get the idea that Rudd is somehow immune to them, unless his own meaningless slogans carry a charm that cancel out opponents’ meaningless slogans.
And I didn’t say NDIS is a weak accomplishment per se. I said it was a weak thing to run on and I gave you two reasons that should have made it abundantly clear what I meant and why I think that. Instead of manufacturing offence, how about you stick to what I am actually arguing. There is no way a rational person could read what I wrote in context and assume I was criticising the actual merits of NDIS.
On Gonski, if Rudd actually does something about the funding, then he has a chance of actually making a case for it. As it stands, Labor’s position is too vulnerable to charges that the program is unaffordable to begin with and harms higher education. And while you seem to think higher ed is limited to a couple of seats held by Labor, you are missing that struggling families who want to send their children to university will be afraid of what cuts to the sector will mean for them.
On NBN, yes it is popular, yes Abbott’s plan is iffy, but Labor’s spending on it outstrips its initial commitment by almost 20 times. That leaves the party open to attacks about its ability to manage the people’s affairs. What’s more, the Coalition has a strong argument. Labor will say Turnbull’s plan fails to deliver on what NBN should be. The Coalition will say their plan saves a lot of money in a time when the budget is in deficit.
As for carbon, the last poll I saw showed a majority against Labor on the issue, so we’ll have to differ on that. Even if a slim majority supports it, the Coalition will take the opportunity to remind voters about how Labor “lied” to them every time the ALP brings carbon pricing up.
You say you know I am “politically affiliated”, implying that I am a conservative. You are just wrong. Just because I refuse to be a cheerleader for the left doesn’t mean I am on the right. I support a woman’s right to choose, and I believe that climate change is real and perilous. I’ve supported same-sex marriage since long before it was cool. I believe that the free market is not the magical machine tories think it is; regulation matters. I believe the growing wealth inequality in the Western world is a growing threat the implications of which are profound and not yet fully understood. And I believe that society has a duty (I would say “a sacred duty”, but I’m an atheist) to help those least able to help themselves, and since experience shows us that charities cannot fulfill that duty, government must.
So don’t assume that because someone’s assessment of the political reality differs from yours that you automatically know anything more. I’m not pointing out these weaknesses because I find it entertaining. Labor has made some huge mistakes, and switching to Rudd does not erase them. They have let the Coalition get its message through on a raft of issues and failed to focus attention where it should be. That is Labor’s fault, and it is not something it is assured of being able to reverse. When it comes to an election campaign in 2013, Labor is not going to interest voters by pointing backwards to the accomplishments it’s had since 2010. It can only really run on accomplishments to the extent they have something to do with a vision for the future.
Finally, I wouldn’t confuse refusing to debate with losing the argument on the economy. And if you knew anything about debates, you’d know that Rudd challenging Abbott to them is a sign of weakness. If Abbott does ultimately refuse (and we won’t really know until the campaign if he does), it may or may not hurt him, depending on how well he manages it in the press.
RichR Human nature is preferring to hear ideas. Slogans put people off and limit what a leader can talk about or be associated with. Tell me what Rudd’s slogan is…thats right he’s talking about ideas, a sign of strength and engagement.
At the end of the day you said for labor, the NDIS is a weak accomplishment to campaign on. This achievement is so significant that as soon as it passed, labor picked up in the polls because it was a great accomplishment for labor and further it reflects decisions that labor is doing what needs to be done to help people. I don’t think a rational person would say the NDIS is not something that will strengthen labor.
The higher education cuts is something that won’t be mentioned alot. The funding for uni is still higher then the howard government, the libs will do the same and not even invest it in education. And if you knew the families where a student can’t afford to go to uni, you would know that families don’t pay to send their child to uni. Plus the cuts barely effect the fees. That is why its not an issue in western sydney, more inner sydney.
Abbotts NBN policy is more than iffy its idiotic in this day and age. The NBN is a long term investment, people seem to favour it and thats what counts. Why on earth would you do a half job on something like the NBN. Its a wonder Turnbull didn’t just challenge based on that stupid plan.
Well the thing about carbon pricing is that Rudd wants to go to an ETS, if Abbott opposes that, he is effectively opposing the scrapping of the Carbon Tax. People feel upset they were lied to by Abbott and will not take it light hearted. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/fewer-voters-want-carbon-tax-axed-20130622-2opby.html
Just because you support those things, doesn’t mean you are immune from a political party.
How on earth is willing to debate on labor’s ‘weak points’ a sign of weakness for Rudd. Abbott has been leader longer and has been chanting the nonsense since he was leader and if he can’t debate a leader who has been in the job barely a week, then Abbott is weak. It will hurt him and unfortunately the fantasy world where he manages the press well, doesn’t exist
“Human nature is preferring to hear ideas.” That’s barking. People (quite rationally) pay only a limited amount of attention to politics, meaning that sound bytes are incredibly effective in moving public opinion. It, not “preferring to hear ideas”, is human nature.
Pretending for a moment that NDIS moved the polls for Labor, it did so for a week, at which point the drift down to the 43-to41 range of 2PP polling that cost Julia Gillard her job. And if we stop pretending, the polling after NDIS passed moved very little, and the direction it moved depended on which firm’s poll you looked at. The Coalition SUPPORTS the policy, so it simply CANNOT be an effective campaign issue. You win election by drawing distinctions between yourself and your opponent. There is no distinction here, so it is a non-issue.
If you think that cuts to education won’t affect support for working-class students, you’re dreaming.
On NBN, that’s Labor’s argument, sure. But I’ve told you what the Coalition’s argument is, and it is a matter of which party will be more effective in catching the minute amount of attention voters will pay to this issue. Just because you disagree with the argument, it doesn’t mean the Australian people will. If the Coalition are successful in scaring people about the deficit, this will be a winning issue for me. If you don’t believe me, look into British, American, Canadian, and German reactions to austerity over the past five years. Actually, I’ll save you the effort. Much to the chagrin of the left in each country, the public have accepted the need for austerity even when the economic argument for it has been weak.
If Abbott opposes carbon pricing and ETS, he will be called a lot of things, but a liar isn’t one of them.
“Just because you support those things, doesn’t mean you are immune from a political party.” That doesn’t actually mean anything. If you are trying to say that somehow I am a Liberal or National, you aren’t making much sense. As I have said, repeatedly now, I am a pragmatist. that means I try to see the situation as it is, not (as you seem to) as I want it to be. I can see where Labor has failed on the politics, which is a separate thing from policy. Having the right policy is not enough. If you screw up the politics for three years running, changing to a new leader does not instantaneously change everything. Perhaps what you are failing to see is that I am not advocating anything at all here. I am simply pointing out that things aren’t all sweetness and light for Labor now that Rudd is in charge. You seem to simply be blind to how politics work.
Again, you don’t understand the politics of debates. When one party challenges another to a debate, it is because the first party is losing and so feels he or she has nothing to lose by risking a debate. That dynamic is even stronger when the person asking for the debate is the incumbent. If you were actually the political observer your screen name claims you are, you would know that. The “X is ducking a debate” and “If X weren’t such a coward/moron, he’d debate me” sort of thing tends not to resonate with voters, as it is seen as process. The only thing that bores the public more than detailed policy is process.
When I say it would be down to how well Abbott manages the issue in the press, we are not talking about expert manipulation; all it takes is not imploding. In fact, what it takes is sticking to a line like, “I spoke with Mr Rudd enough the first time he was prime minister. What I want to do between now and polling day is talk to ordinary, hard-working Australians and listen to their hopes and worries and discuss with them how we can, together, secure Australia’s future.” And in answer to the reporter who immediately re-asks the question? “Kevin Rudd may want to debate me, but he should be out talking to real Australians so he can explain [something something cost of living] and tell them why [blah blah blah immigration]. Instead of giving scripted answers to reporters’ scripted questions, he should face questions from people up and down the country about [something something six years of disastrous Labor rule something something]. Getting past a debate challenge doesn’t require fantasy level skills. Mostly it takes repeating answers like the one above until people get bored and stop caring. Which doesn’t take all that long. Certainly not the length of a five-week campaign plus the time between now and when it starts.
I’m pretty sure that $90b figure for the NBN is just the Coalition’s rubbery guess at what it will eventually cost, not a real figure you can point to and claim a budget overrun on the basis of.
Observer: on WA, Canning is marginal for a reason – it’s that kind of seat. Labor had a dreadful campaign in 2004 which resulted in the largest swing to the Libs in the whole country, so MacTiernan’s good result was a kind of a delayed correction for that. Hasluck is certainly winnable, but you’d have to wait for a good year for federal Labor in WA before Canning, Swan or Stirling come into play. Rudd or not, this ain’t one – wait for 2016, when Barnett’s (or Buswell’s) govt is starting to stink up the place. Meanwhile, Cowan could be semi-permanently slipping away. It used to have a similar margin to Brand once upon a time.
Speaking of 2016, WA will get an extra seat while NSW will probably lose one. The new WA seat will involve a fair bit of map re-drawing in the outer suburbs of Perth, and could be won by either side. If Labor win it, plus Hasluck, Canning, Swan, Stirling and the 3 they’ve already got, that’d be a decent result – exactly half the seats. I could live with that.
A Buswell Government? Surely not!
Rich R
Thanks for your detailed posts to Observer. All very sound stuff. I would like to echo most of it.
B of P
Hasluck might look marginal on the numbers. However Wyatt’s sophomore surge will be awesome as Australia’s first indigenous MP. 5% feels about right.
Sure, but do we really need to be subjected to the inarticulate policy ramblings of rusted on supporters which add absolutely nothing to the likelihood of the result of any seat, let alone, the overall result? Can’t people who want to do that go to Andrew Bolt’s blog or Fairfax blogs?
Yes, I know. It is a good point.
DB is right, people should try to stick to topic or I will start cutting away big chunks of your comments, particularly when they take up the entire screen.
DB
Hear, Hear !!!
Ben Raue
May i make a suggestion ??. How about a post on what is the single biggest national issue ATM. Whatever it is, it will be too hot for the pollies to even mention !!!.Say for example : THE FULL, & FINAL DIVISION OF STATE, & FEDERAL ROLES, & RESPONSIBILITIES.
Or perhaps a policy which would have broad public support, unquestionable benefit, & could achieve bipartisan support??. Say for example the mandated supply of E 85 fuel, thereby leading to a specialised car export industry (of E 85 compatible vehicles)
This would illustrate the inanity of the political debate, & the ease of bringing the people together, as opposed to the disgusting divisiveness that prevails.
What do you think ??
RichR
If its not a strong issue because the coalition supported, how come they never put it in when they were in government? That is a valid argument and I’ll think you will find this is on peoples mind in labor heartland in both regional seats (Newcastle, Corio) and suburban seats that have stuck with labor (Chisolm, Lilley)
The uni cuts mean better schooling education which will resinate with people so much in suburban areas with new families particularly Greenway and Chifley. No parent pays for their childs university, especially when they have siblings. The cuts will probably see an increase in the green vote making Melbourne a difficult one to hold (but liberal preference deal for labor looks certain) and Grayndler (Being DPM will make Albanese a hold).
It doesn’t matter if NBN is overcosted on the liberal parties costings because the majority of Australians support it overwhelmingly. Seats like Robertson are interested in it and have a positive reaction to labor now.
He would certainly be could a liar particularly in seats hes banged on about lies of the carbon tax such as macquarie and lindsay.
Ummm look I don’t think you know much about debates. yes people won’t watch it. People in trendy seats like Melbourne Ports will however and snippets of it on the news will be on in every house hold. The message labor has been getting through is Abbott is too afraid and that labor is so perfect that its willing to debate on its weakest points
The point is the whole talking to real people are cliches they won’t work and people dont hear from him because of his stunts. Having Abbott as leader is why I think labor can win the election
Observer, do you have trouble reading?
I think Labor can win the election too. And I did that without the other rubbish.
Observer,
If you aren’t going to bother reading what I’ve written, you could at the very least put forth the effort to read posts from the site’s owner telling us to shut the hell up. So you are just going to have to keep on believing I am a conservative, despite reality, and I will keep on believing that you are so blinded by your ideology that you can’t see the world for what it is.
Well RichR as you see, I applied labor policies to the seats they will effect, the seats that make this a very different close election instead of ranting on about how even if Rudd cured all diseases, he’s still the devil.
And DB I read (including things other than internal polling) just fine, there are some people are too blind to see this a close election and need reminding about why it is, even if they think life changing reforms are ‘weak’
Observer, you may be able to read, but you aren’t terribly careful about it. I never said Rudd is bad; I said he doesn’t automatically fix everything. I told you I think Labor can win the election, and I told you I was not referring to the merits of NDIS. The fact that you are again trying to claim otherwise concerning the latter is dishonest and disgusting.
your words not mine saying that the NDIS would be weak to campaign on…. i have no idea how you can come to that but like the Green said, policy free zone. But if you think elections can’t be won on policy and achievements, your in for a shock later this year
PJ: A Buswell govt is certainly possible. He’s often spoken of as the second best minister after Barnett, since Porter quit to go federal. It may even be true, considering the qualities of the rest of the Libs’ front bench. The most recent was Peter Collier, pilloried on the front page of the West for losing a shit-ton of money trying to fix terminally broken power stations in Collie. They aren’t even hateable, like Graham Kierath and his like were in the 90’s. They’re just there, hanging around, and they’ll be gone eventually.
Winediamond: I’m not sure about Hasluck. The combined effect of the last few federal elections has been equivalent to the last NSW election – Labor only hold 20% of WA’s seats. (It was a quiet landslide – the Libs picked off one or two seats at a time consistently.) Hasluck can be compared to seats like Campbelltown or Smithfield, which only turn blue if something’s gone very wrong for Labor. It’s constantly trending towards Labor compared to the state as a whole, and hasn’t returned a sitting member yet in four terms of existence. Ken Wyatt is far from safe. If Labor have a result less bad than the last few times, his seat will be the first to turn red. (Anyone who wants to call me optimistic for that should realise I’m still tipping a 11-4 defeat by the away team.)
Even the fact Ken Wyatt is black probably won’t have much to do with it. His nephew Ben has a fair chance of becoming the next Labor premier if McGowan doesn’t last, but that has nothing to do with his race. He’s a part of WA Labor’s new generation (post-Brian Burke) who just happens to be black. It’s not all about tokenism any more.
B of P
Yeah Wyatt is far from safe, Hasluck is the most marginal seat in WA. However he has incumbency – budget, & a point of difference. Not tokenism. It all makes it harder for people to vote against him.
As for something going very wrong for Labor, i could just ask what has gone right in the last six years. However i’m not at all interested in anyone defending this govt. So what ill do is ask more sophisticated questions
ON the basis that “YOU CAN’T ARGUE WITH SUCCESS” . Our 2 most successful post war govts were the Hawke (not Keating), & Howard govts . How many less successful govts were there than the Rudd govt ???
Bear in mind that the judgement of his own colleagues was to fire him rather than let him face the people. So what was everyone else supposed to think???. What does that say about his govt???.
Observer, I never said policy can’t win elections, but it has to be sold properly. Labor has utterly failed at that over the last few years, something that most Labor supporters (excluding you, it seems) have felt frustrated by. As for NDIS, I think it was clear what I meant from context, and I have clarified it since if it wasn’t. In continuing to trot that out, you show you are a fool, immune to argument or a liar. Either way. I’m done with you on this, so go ahead and misrepresent me to your heart’s content.
Interestingly, Sports bet has the Coalition leading in 89 seats, labor leading in 54, and tied in 5. (Wilkie and Katter are the other 2). Favorite number of seats for the coalition is 100 plus ($1.87). 91-100 seats is second favorite at $3, 81-90 seats at $4.25 and 71 to 80 at $4.5. This would suggest that despite the polls, the coalition is still looking at a big to very big victory. However, bookies are not in the habit of giving odds that favour the punter because if they do then they go out of business. Conversely, punters who see good odds bet on it and the price comes in.
Further, academic work by such people as Wolfers suggest that betting odds are a more accurate predictor of outcomes than polls. Inherently this makes sense to me on the basis that if a sitting member / party does confidential polling and says that they are going to lose then the staffer who sees the “poll on the printer” has a small bet. The opponent also conducts confidential polling and says that they are going to win then the staffer who sees the “poll on the printer” has a small bet. The combination of small bets going creates a change in price until an equilibrium in odds is met. For those with an interest in corporate finance this like an efficient market hypothesis.
Not sure what the disconnect is. Perhaps the swings are in very safe seats? Or particular areas such as Western Sydney? Or perhaps seats like Banks which the labor party had apparently given up on are going to have “sophomore surge” to the challenger as they have been the only candidate on the ground over the last 12 mths.
In WA, the odds show Labor winning Perth and Freeo, Brand is a dead heat and the rest go to the coalition. Interestingly, Hasluck is $1.2 to the coalition and $4 to Labor. There has been considerable discussion on Tally Room on the coalition’s chances in Hasluck with the general consensus is that it will be close. The odds suggest it will not be. And neither will the election?
Betting odds are not an independent source of information and prediction about outcomes. The only additional information that they could reflect was on internal party polling. At the end of the day that has proved to be overrated – you are better working off interpretation off publicly available polling information. On the arguments Peter Brent at Mumble can be relied on to giving those who rely on betting a good serve from time to time while Simon Jackman is a proponent and reports on them regularly
I think you’ll find that the individual seat markets are very thin, too.
I’m a sceptic about using the odds.
The odds are simply an aggregation of conventional wisdom. Most people who place a bet are relying on the polls and commentary, just like we are. Very few of the bets would come from those with insider information.
Individual seat odds are particularly unreliable as there would be relatively few bets per seat, and many of those betting wont live in the seat. The slew of seats where the odds favoured the Coalition challenger over the sitting Labor MP simply reflected the conventional wisdom at the type (not unreasonably) that Labor would lose badly.
Since very few bets are cast, it will take time for the odds to reflect the new reality of a close race. I wouldn’t take this lag to mean those placing bets somehow know better than the polls.
Initially, when doing my analysis of each seat, around a month before Gillard was rolled, I came up with the following prediction:
Coalition: 102
Labor: 46
Katter: 1
Independent: 1 (Wilkie)
After Rudd got back in, and with a keen look at the analysis of each seat and informed info at the ready, things have changed substantially with my prediction.
Coalition: 78
Labor: 70
Katter: 1
Independent: 1 (Wilkie)
There were a number of Coalition and Labor held seats in my analysis that could easily have gone the other way, but due to a lack of reliable info post leadership change, I have gone with the home team for some of these seats. I do think that the election is close, but can easily swing towards a Coalition landslide, if Rudd stuffs up in some way, or a narrow Labor victory.
For the first time since early 2011, I’m saying that Labor can win the Federal Election.
I’ll provide another update closer to the election on my prediction.
Coalition seats projected:
Aston, Banks, Barker, Bennelong, Berowra, Bonner, Boothby, Bowman, Bass, Bradfield, Brisbane, Calare, Canning, Casey, Cook, Cowan, Cowper, Curtin, Dickson, Dobell, Dunkley, Durack, Eden-Monaro, Fadden, Fairfax, Farrer, Fisher, Flinders, Forrest, Gippsland, Goldstein, Greenway, Grey, Groom, Hasluck, Higgins, Hinkler, Hughes, Hume, Indi, Kooyong, Leichhardt, Lindsay, Lingiari, Longman, Lyne, Macarthur, Mackellar, Macquarie, Mallee, Maranoa, Mayo, McMillan, McPherson, Menzies, Mitchell, Moncreiff, Moore, Moreton, Murray, New England, North Sydney, O’Connor, Parkes, Paterson, Pearce, Riverina, Ryan, Solomon, Stirling, Sturt, Swan, Tangney, Wannon, Warringah, Wentworth, Wide Bay
Labor seats projected:
Adelaide, Ballarat, Barton, Braddon, Batman, Bendigo, Blair, Blaxland, Brand, Bruce, Calwell, Canberra, Capricornia, Charlton, Chifley, Chisholm, Corangamite, Corio, Cunningham, Dawson, Deakin, Flynn, Forde, Fowler, Franklin, Fraser, Fremantle, Gellibrand, Gilmore, Gorton, Grayndler, Griffith, Herbert, Hindmarsh, Holt, Hotham, Hunter, Isaacs, Jagajaga, Kingsford Smith, Kingston, La Trobe, Lalor, Lilley, Lyons, Makin, Maribyrnong, McEwen, McMahon, Melbourne, Melbourne Ports, Newcastle, Oxley, Page, Parramatta, Perth, Petrie, Port Adelaide, Rankin, Reid, Richmond, Robertson, Scullin, Shortland, Sydney, Throsby, Wakefield, Watson, Werriwa, Wills
Katter: Kennedy
Independent: Dickson
Interested in your thoughts.
Independent: Dickson – don’t you mean Denison?
DLH – I reckon it’s too early to call seats. Way too early. I suspect we will see some wild swings with seats going both ways. I generally think the Libs will pick up net seats in NSW, TAS, VIC and SA at this point and will probably have net losses in QLD (possibly large losses) and WA. I’m not prepared to nominate seats though and I get to see internal polling from time to time.
I’m not even convinced that the Libs will have Abbott as their leader at the election. It would not surprise me if he were replaced by Hockey with Turnbull as Opposition Treasurer in the next few weeks.
I thought that the Greens would do better under a Rudd led Labor Party, but perhaps not. It will certainly make the Senate interesting. I’m not sure the Greens will do better than 3 in the Senate.
Also, how many seats are you projecting to change hands? 8 from ALP/LIB or LIB/ALP plus 2 Ind? It will be more than 15 seats that change. Have a look at the past 6 elections on seat changes for an indication on past history. Arguably, this election would be more volatile because at least 1 leader is different to the last election. There should be some substantial seat changes in this forthcoming election – probably both ways.
“I’m not even convinced that the Libs will have Abbott as their leader at the election. It would not surprise me if he were replaced by Hockey with Turnbull as Opposition Treasurer in the next few weeks.”
DB, you made this comment before. Could you please explain how this would happen if they do not sit agian before the election.
Bunny, there is no requirement in the Liberal Party constitution that states that Parliament must be sitting in order for a leadership ballot to take place.
oh, really i never knew that. I think Joe would be good, but do you think it would be safe for the pary to change? Just hope the LIB’s win, even if it is by two or three seats
Why Hockey DB? What do you know?
@ Ben Raue – at the risk of taking the discussion OT, the odds however are the closest thing we have to a market in political outcomes and for familiar reasons, market prices tend to be a good reflection of what the best informed estimate is of the actual outcome.
They aren’t perfect – no market is any more omniscient than its participants, that is a reflection of the difference between risk and uncertainty – but there are strong incentives driving the prices toward an accurate reflection of the best estimate of the best informed self-interested participants.
http://tippie.uiowa.edu/iem/media/story.cfm?ID=2971
DB: “I thought that the Greens would do better under a Rudd led Labor Party, but perhaps not. It will certainly make the Senate interesting. I’m not sure the Greens will do better than 3 in the Senate.”
Which 3 do you think DB? Tas, Vic & NSW?
DB, I echo QO: Why Hockey. Is it just that he is the best-known Liberal who could possibly win who isn’t named Abbott or Turnbull, or is there something more? I hope they do change; it will destabilise conservative vote and show the right is trying to fight on likability, which means they aren’t focusing on where Labor is vulnerable. If the Coalition changes leaders, I think Labor becomes the favourite.
Yappo, probably. The Greens cannot hope to get 6. Their primary vote won’t be enough to get that many and they probably won’t get the same preference deals they received last time (i.e. I am hearing that Labor is likely to preference KAP and other minor rights ahead of the Greens in the Senate). The Greens are outside chances in WA and SA, but I think even with the recent swing to the Government, it will be hard for them. If they do better than 3 they should be happy given polling.
RichR, to be truthful, there are a couple disgruntled senior people thinking about the best election strategy. Rudd can illafford to go back to Parliament if he wants to go against Abbott. This election campaign is presently not about the Government’s performance (accepted by most swining voters to be poor) or the future; it is about Rudd. Rudd alone could carry Labor over the line – just. Many voters out there are none too happy with the Government overall but will back Rudd given the way he was ousted. Abbott is not popular. I think anyone in the Liberal Party but Abbott would be more popular. If the major polls go to 52/48 to Labor, I’d be looking at Hockey to challenge with Turnbull probably as Deputy or at least Treasurer. Don’t be surprised if Abbott is not the Leader come the election.
I still think the Coalition will win the election regardless of the Leader. When the focus comes back to the economy, as simplistic as debt and deficit is, the Coalition have an extremely compelling story. And let’s face it, 99% of the time, elections are won on the economy and jobs – neither are too strong at the moment.
Interesting thoughts re: election and leadership DB. We’ll wait and see.
I see three lock ins for the Greens (Tas, where there vote should be one quota; Vic, where there vote is relatively holding up and should be near enough to one quota; and WA, where the Labor vote won’t be much above two quotas and their small surplus should push the Greens across the line). I think they’ll luck out in SA due to the Xenophon effect (and an improved Lib vote) and NSW and QLD are too convoluted to tell at this time. I won’t be suprised if they get 4.
Hi PJ – how does it work that the Greens win if the Lib vote is strong?
If Xenophon wins one, and Libs win three – how do the Greens win – do you think Labor might only win one?
Ben – Sorry, ‘luck out’ was the wrong term, I meant it as in the Greens will probably be out of luck in SA.
I think the Greens are odds-on to definite to get a seat in TAS, WA, VIC, probably line-ball in NSW, a bit below line-ball in QLD and at long odds in SA.
Also my ‘theres’ should have been ‘theirs.’ Clearly I shouldn’t think politics before midday. 🙂
Comments are closed.