Do not adjust your sets. Coalition on 43, Labor on 33, Greens on 15. Tables here. (It’s 52 to 48 if preferences are distributed Newspoll-style.)
In the Oz a Mining industry sponsered newspoll finds the RTSP rather unpopular in marginal Queensland and Western Australia, but no voting intentions.
Tables here.
Wednesday morning update: In answer to a couple of questions in comments. If someone said to me: “here is a nice new car, the keys will be yours if you correctly nominate, now, the number of seats Labor will win at the next federal election,” I would answer …. “86″.
If this does turn out to be in the ballpark, then of course current opinion poll numbers won’t be repeated on polling day. They will change.
There will be lots of known/unknown unknowns etc between now and then, importantly in the government’s and the Coalition’s behaviour. But oppositions come under scrutiny in election campaigns. I reckon industrial relations will be an issue. Tony Abbott is difficult to vote for.
Statewise, I still reckon Labor will lose net seats in New South Wales and Queensland and gain net in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. What is due to the RTSP will be one of those matters for discussion.
There. This post now also in “anticipations” category.
Yeah “Woah” pretty much sums it up doesn’t it.
Labor on 33%???? That looks very strange.
There are enough polls in now from enough different sources to reliably conclude that there is a significant primary vote swing against the ALP, which has benefited the crazies in the L/NP and GREENs.
This tells me that Minchin’s martyrdom operation has achieved an astounding Bin-Laden like polarising success: harming the moderates inside both major parties and helping the militants in the minor parties.
Minchin has effectively de-railed the careers of the two most successful, an politically moderate, men in Parliament: Turnbull and Rudd. And he has elevated the careers of the two most politically militant men in Parliament: Abbott and Brown.
I am not surprised that Rudd is suffering personally from the failure of the ETS, he pinned his colors to that mast. I am a little surprised at the strength of the anti-ALP reaction, particularly amongst Centre-Right voters.
Its not like the ALP has gone out of its way to alienate that bloc. Tax-cuts, watered down CPRS, border protextion, what more do they want?
I guess there was not a lot of love their for Rudd to be lost in the first place.
I just find these opinion polls difficult to read. I know there are some significant campaigns against the Government at the moment (especially from the Miners and also the Murdoch press) but this decline is suggestive of some major political disaster, and by my reading, this Government has had wins and losses, like most Governments do, but it is not yet in the realm of deadmen (and women) walking like their NSW colleagues.
If the ALP lose the 2010 election then this will be the first AUS federal election that I have called wrong since I started amateur psepho in the early nineties. Got 1993 right (Fightback was a suicide note) but no hard proof, just shooting the breeze round the pool. 1996 was a no-brainer. Took a bye in 1998. Got 2001, 2004 and 2007 spot-on.
It will also signal the end of the Great Convergence trend that AUS has been in for a good part of the nineties and all of the noughties. The L/NP’s Right-wing lurch has obviously triggered a Left-wing lurch in parts of the ALP and towards the GREENs.
There is no precedent for a fairly settled polity to throw out a competent, unified and moderate party in government in the midst of a relatively prosperous period. No scandals, no leadership divisions, no recession.
Nor is there any real evidence of a profound demographic shift that might be underlying a major partisan re-alignment.
What gives? Why is the electorate so cranky?
Great comment about Minchin, Jack.
Over the weekend, one sentence in Tom Dusevic’s article in the Oz stood out for me – the observation that there had only been five changes in Commonwealth government since 1949.
For me, that is basically my lifetime and that thought had never really occurred to me in that way. (aside: I guess it doesn’t feel like that because of all the state/council elections etc). Anyway, I started thinking about the “climate” in 72, 75, 83, 96, 07.
In the first four of those changes, there was a LOT of stuff happening. In 07, I think it was really Workchoices and getting sick and tired of Howard that caused the change ‘from one plasma TV to another plasma TV’ (with apologies to Deirdre Macken).
Now we (as in the great Australian possessive) are getting sick and tired of Rudd (how tedious on ABC this AM and doing the Peter Beattie line of a ‘new’ government looking to the future)and we are all very secure and comfortable (attending to the GFC matters would seem to be the one +ve that Rudd and co. have done – but as we never really suffered very much, do we appreciate how well off we are?? – you know, you’ve got to lose a grand final to really want to win one).
So will 2010 mark the sixth change of Gov’t?? If Abbott could absolutely kick Worchoices out the door and re-engage with Malcolm in the middle somehow, then maybe it could happen.
What a horrible, horrible, scary prospect though!
I think they’re venting some rather aimless spleen. Better for Labor they vent it now rather than later… wait ’til the ALP gets busy on some anti-Abbott ads in the campaign proper.
Normal service will resume shortly.
As the left wing progressives said about post Utegate polling for the Coalition: ouch-poll. Kevin Rudd’s honeymoon has ended, and to paraphrase an economist, it has taken a hard landing rather than a soft landing.
Do I think the Coalition will get anything close to the 53/47 in the Nielsen poll? No chance. Do I think the Coalition will gain seats from Labor? Yes, as I have long claimed.
My long standing view has been that the most likely outcome is a narrowing of Labor’s TPP margin and a loss of few seats from 2007 levels (40-50% chance). I feel there is a 10-20% chance that Labor will increase its majority and a 30-40% chance of a Coalition victory either majority or a minority government with one or more independents.
I think the Labor vote has bled to the Greens as the Libs have not gained in the primaries-A lot of young voters seem to be every disillusioned. BUT this should alert them to the possibilty that
IF THEY VOTE GREEN THEY CAN END UP WITH ABBOTT AND THE LIBERALS- and currently they are not sympathetic to climate change action.
Idealism is fine – to be admired BUT you can end up by default with a choice you would not have made.
Will the LIbs change leaders to appela to the middle?
Food for thought:
Oppositions, particularly after a change in leadership experience an initial sharp rise in support that tends to slowly deflate as the election draws closer (ie. the narrowing effect).
In Abbotts case it appears to be widening as the election draws nearer. Cannot think of another occasion when this has happened. Could it be because he was such a known quantity to begin with?
Stuff happens
The Nielsen number is not an outlier from the trend, but it has bent the post-October line into non-linearity. This trend line currently rests at about 51% ALP TPP. Assuming the line straightens up again, but otherwise continues, the ALP TPP in November would be about 46. Assuming the current sickening decline will continue, would give you less than 44%. But if history repeats itself and the TPP bounces off the Event Horizon instead of dropping below it, then we would be back in 53-55% territory.
Of course, the headline figure for the Nielsen poll is very bad for Labor. But rather than start slitting wrists, Labor should collectively clench their buttocks and wait for the rumbling to pass. There is something to work with in this poll or rather the table that accompanies it.
Neilsen shows the number of respondents who refuse to nominate or wont commit to a party as 6%. Newspoll had 8% which seems large and indicative of the electorate’s ambivalance towards Abbott and the seething rage of ALP voters with the ETS decision. I think those refuse/uncommitted figures are good for Labor.
Anyway back to Nielsen which notes that the small samples in states such as WA produce huge margins of area. So forget them. Best to focus on the city v rural comparisions. Labor is down 49/51 in the city where it holds most of its seats. This could readily be improved. But the rural 2pp is 45/55 so Labor would expect to lose its rural/regional seats mainly in QLD [Leichhardt, Herbert [notionally], Dawson and Flynn]. In NSW, maybe Eden Monaro and Page but I doubt it. And there is none anywhere else [forget Lingiari].
The age groups 18 to 39 still favour Labor while over 55s strongly support the coalition. Even with a 5% MoE, the result in VIC is encouraging for Labor [50/50]. They could hold their marginals and maybe have a chance in 2 coalition seats.
Labor’s seat-by-seat campaign particularly in city electorates wil be crucial. So as I noted, there is something to work with here and it has already started with the targeting of Abbott [no broadband, no computers, no school improvements, growing unemployment as the LIBs cut dead the stimulus money etc]. You get the drift.
Your ‘drift’ is obvious John. But only a few days ago you were very confident that the ‘most likely’ outcome for Labor was an ‘increase’ in seats at the next election.
Do you still hold to that view ?
And it does seem that the P.M. shares your opinion regarding the so called ‘unelectability’ of Tony Abbott. It is now, the only line of attack available. All the others are pretty much in tatters.
The danger is that when the government Ministers ridicule and insult an opposition leader it can look like schoolyard bullying and name calling, and this churlish stuff can backfire very badly; particularly when very few voters now listen to the P.M. let alone agree with him.
I said a few days ago, after the Newspoll, that I thought the split was nearer 51/49 . . to the Coalition, rather than the other way around. It seems I may have underestimated the swing to the Coalition.
The question on every Labor member’s mind must now, surely be : can we win the election with Rudd as P.M ?
Just to contrast the shade of red this blog is taking, maybe somthing positive in this poll for the coalition. Still predicting Rudd has a rabbit in his hat on this mining tax. Seems all too stage managed for my liking. Whilst its still impossible to back an Abbott victory, Labor gains is becoming increasingly difficult to forsee.
Cant help but feel that the Coalition would have nothing to lose by changing leaders to someone more centralist. Turnbull would have been perfect had they not successfully trashed him already. Sloppy Joe wont do, doesnt leave much in the cupboard hey
They should immediately change to Julia Gillard before its too late.
Obviously, this is just a correction from the obscenely high popularity Rudd enjoyed for the first two years. The same people who backed him in everything have gotten bored of doing that, and are now deciding to see the things they missed. Trouble is, it’s too close to the election for comfort. Will Labor be able to turn it around?
Most likely, yes. I just checked the polling records, and Latham was still enjoying 53-47 from Nielsen as late as August 17, 2004. Panic not, Mr Rudd. Joe Public has not considered the alternative, yet.
Hi Colin: I didn’t think that I revealed such a view in these blogs. But I can confirm that I think Peter is right and in doing so, have probably jinxed his betting on such an outcome. Peter’s view is that Labor will increase its tally based on the 83 seats it won at the 2007 election. After the redistributions however, Labor holds [notionally] 88. So Labor could still win more than 83 – and Peter would be correct – but lose on the notional number.
IF THEY VOTE GREEN THEY CAN END UP WITH ABBOTT AND THE LIBERALS
NO THEY CAN’T. IF THE GREENS AND LABOR EXCHANGE PREFERENCES THEY WILL VOTE ONE OR THE OTHER IN IN EVERY SEAT. The worst you could get is a Labor-Liberal coalition, but only if Labor would prefer to be an equal partner with the Liberals, then the major partner with the Greens. (NB: I assume a Liberal-Green coalition, as in Tasmania, would count as a win for those who would support the Greens. That is, I assume it’s better that the Greens have power, then that Abbott doesn’t. If Greens supporters enjoy nose-cutting for face-spiting, they might prefer to force the Labor-Liberal coalition, but that would be stupid of them.)
In any case, I predict that this won’t happen, that Labor will win, and that the Greens will get to have the deciding vote in the Senate when the major parties can’t work together.
I shouted: “If the Greens and Labor exchange preferences they will vote [for] one or the other in every seat.”
As a clarification, I meant, in every seat Labor would’ve won, if “they” had’ve voted for Labor and not the Greens.
I have come to be cynical of opinion polls and political pundits -and Dennis Shanahan’s ramblings today in the Australian were an absolute doozy -but that having been said, I think Rudd is in deep trouble
From my recollections it is not unusual for a government to be trailing this badly in an election year -look at Keating in 1992-1993 and Howard in 2001 and 2004. What is unusual, I think, is for a government to be performing reasonably well during the first half of an election year and then to take such a massive dive as the election gets closer. Usually a government will be in trouble during the first half of the year but its stocks will start to recover during the second half of the year (particularly in the post-budget aftermath). Even when Keating lost in the 1996 landslide, his and his government’s numbers during the latter part of 1995 weere improving from where they had been during the first half of the year (this is based on my memory, which could be entirely faulty). So in effect this is a reverse of the usual trend and that is profoundly disturbing for the government
Furthermore I think Rudd’s time frame for the election may be limited by the various state election campaigns on later during the year -thus preventing him from delaying the election as long as possible so as to recover his government’s popularity. A November election will coincide with the Victorian State Election and state issues may play a role in overshadowing the federal election campaign and costing the Rudd government crucial seats in Victoria. Any later than that and the federal election campaign will be overshadowed by the NSW State Election campaign -and Rudd won’t want fully-fledged coverage of the woeful performance of the Kenneally government to overshadow his efforts to promote the Labor government during the course of the federal election.
Rudd’s main asset is Tony Abbott -he is a very polarizing and divisive figure and indications are that voters dislike him just as much if not more than Rudd. I think the only option for Rudd at the moment is to focus on the negative in promoting Abbott as in essence the worse of two evils. But even this strategy has its risks because Rudd and his ministers may come across as overly negative and this may turn off voters
Despite all this, I still think Rudd’s chances of winning are at least 50-50 and he can come back from this. He is in trouble, however, and he will need to proceed cautiously from now on
Apologies, John, for attributing to you what in fact Peter had said on an increased majority.
So Peter, do you still hold to that view ?
No doubt, however, is there John (?), that you’re in full agreement with the latest attack on ‘Abbott as P.M’ which has come from every government minister today.
We’ll be hearing of it over and over . . . and the risk is evident. Say something often enough and people begin to take it as fact.. . as a given. It can sound like a concession.
I think with numbers and stats at times we get too caught up in comparing this poll to a previous election some years ago and assuming the patterns will be some what the same now.
The reality is that the numbers are driven by people and there perspective of whats happening now. There is abosolutly no statitical input into any poll that says what was the equivilent poll this far out from an election x years ago.
That said, the things that are happening to CAUSE these numbers are exactly as Daniel has said above “The same people who backed him in everything have gotten bored of doing that, and are now deciding to see the things they missed.”
And they are not seeing much good from the last few years other than an appology, a summit and a debatable claim that handing out 900 cheques wholely and solely avoided recession. Just where is that good news story that the left continues to push? Is it the one about insulation? school buildings? ETS? Child Care centres and super clinics that arnt built? I may seem partison here but obviously 53% of people are thinking the same thing….
Colin (two comments up): yes, I still hold to that view.
Jack Strocchi said:
‘There is no precedent for a fairly settled polity to throw out a competent, unified and moderate party in government in the midst of a relatively prosperous period. No scandals, no leadership divisions, no recession.’
I bet if I looked at enough examples I could find one. Which examples did you look at, Jack? How about the UK election of 1970? Why doesn’t that count?
‘There is no precedent for a fairly settled polity to throw out a competent, unified and moderate party in government in the midst of a relatively prosperous period. No scandals, no leadership divisions, no recession.’
Australian Federal Election 2007. It was old government syndrome that killed Howard as well as the most conservative Labor leader ever who was able to reassure the electorate of his competency but it still fulfils your criteria.
To Rationalist: you’re dead right. That’s why I hold the view I do. To Colin: Targeting Abbott in isolation is not enough. Labor has to add what Abbott will do to the economy. Withdrawing the stimulus abruptly rather than gradually will increase unemployment. There may be some problems with the school building projects [mostly in NSW] but its contribution to economic growth and the construction industry is substantial. Just read what Ross Gittins has had to say about this. Labor has a good economic story to tell.
53/47 to the coalition suggests that there is a national mood for change, but as noted in an earlier comment, the cities are a bit ambivalent on that. 51/49 to the LIBs doesn’t seem strong to me and is retrievable by Labor. Also, while Peter doesn’t wish to drill down to seats, I’m happy to.
For starters, there are 25 seats with margins of 2% or less [14 ALP, 11 COAL]. NSW has 8, QLD 6, VIC 4, WA 4, TAS 1, NT, SA 1. The Coalition has to win those 14 ALP seats and hold its own “first 11″. Big ask. Moving further up the pendulum, there are 40 seats [a bit over a quarter of all seats] with margins of 0% to 4% [23 ALP, 17 COAL]. Add in Leichardt & Brand [because of recent commentary] and you get 42. I am happy to comment on specific seats but for another time.
Sorry. It was Jack Strocchi’s comment that I think is dead right. The one that starts “There is no precedent…. “
John,
K R overegged the pudding and something has gone wrong for him. The popularity is a store of trust that a leader draws on. Unfortunately all of the broken promises has coalesced into an image of a leader who cant deliver.
The ALP needs to make the switch to Julia now -its not an anti-Labor vote its an anti-Kevin vote. It can be arranged, some UN rapporteur gig may be just the go. Maybe Kevin could be a climate change rapporteur?
So what does the essantial poll have to say – it is positive for Labor?
The federal election has to be in August or October. It can’t be any other month by process of elimination.
September: Footy finals (politicians wouldn’t dare)
November: Victorian state election
December: Christmas
On November 24 it is 3 years since the 2007 poll, so if the election is delayed beyond this date the opposition will accuse the PM of being chicken. There is also the complication of a NSW poll in March 2011.
Second week of October looks about the right date for an election. Any thoughts?
Hi Pat Hills: I am a big Julia Gillard fan but Rudd will lead Labor to the election. I have to say though that well before the current slump in Rudd’s popularity, I ventured that Rudd might retire in 2012 – after 5 years at the top – because he wants a new challenge [UN?], he’s done what he wants to do & he wants to go out on his own terms. Rare in political leadership these days. Of course there is a chance he’ll leave not of his own accord, but at the behest of the electorate later this year.
Neil,
Second week of October sounds reasonable, but it is getting awfully close to the Vic election and I am sure Rudd wants to give Brumby clean air. Also means campaigning through footy finals. Aug 28 seems to be favoured to avoid this.
I will be brave and set out some seats that are at risk right now and may be lost.
QLD: Herbert (notionally ALP), Flynn, Dawson, Leichardt.
WA: Swan (notionally ALP), Hasluck
NSW: Robertson, Macquarie, Gilmore (notionally ALP)
NT: Solomon
I see this as a worst case scenario and this is 10 seats from the 88 notionally held. However ALP may pick up some seats in some states to offset the losses. These are:
VIC: McEwen, La Trobe
QLD: Bowman, Ryan?
I think it may be an election like 2004, seats gained and lost both ways, with the 2007 status quo result held.
Any opinions? Anyone brave enough to have a go at this early stage?
John Anderson said:
‘Sorry. It was Jack Strocchi’s comment that I think is dead right. The one that starts “There is no precedent…. “’
Given the counterexamples, why?
Peter,
Do you think the RSPT proposal will cost many seats in QLD and WA?
Ben,
In 1998 John Howard called the election the week after the AFL Grand Final and campaigned all through the finals series. If it had been a draw it would have been interesting to hold the election on the same day as the Grand Final Replay.
And in 2004 the election was 2 weeks after the Grand Final. Obviously Howard was happy for people to be distracted by footy finals.
But I agree with your August logic because I’m sure the PM wants as much focus on Tony Abbott as possible. However my feeling is the PM will want more time for the polls to improve. The weather in October is also sunnier and warmer, especially in the Southern states.
My nap bet for an ALP gain is Dickson where the sitting member wanted to move to a safer seat. While a possible Liberal gain is Corangamite where the Liberal candidate is Sarah Henderson, the daughter of former state minister Ann Henderson who was the respected member for Geelong before narrowly losing in the 1999 boilover.
In response to Peter . . or more in a state of bemusement at your robust confidence that Labor can gain seats.
Presumably you don’t believe the 6% swing since the last election will hold sway. For if it did, and was uniform across the electorate, Labor would lose at the least the 24 marginal seats that John nominated (I think the pollsters claim a loss of 29 seats on the latest poll numbers). This isn’t allowing for the ‘particularities’ of each seat, I admit, for tremendous effort and money will be directed at many of these marginals. But . . am I being overly skeptical to question your confidence ?
So at what figure does your calculation of Labor gaining seats, kick in ? When it is back to a 50-50 (which is still a swing of 3% against Labor from 2007, isn’t it?), or do you expect the full 6% swing back . . or . . perhaps even more ?
I’m looking forward to John’s examination of the marginal seats.
Col,
The Liberals need a swing just to retain their existing seats.
Pat; I openly admit I’m an ignoramus when it comes to numbers, but the only way I can make sense out of your statement is to assume you mean that there’s been a re-distribution of electorates and that this shift in boundaries favours Labor. Is that what you mean ?
If so, it strikes me that a very similar thing happened over here in The West at the last State election where a re-distribution was expected to favour Labor and render them certainties to be returned to government. It went horribly wrong and in spite of the redistribution Labor lost rather badly.
If there is a mood for a change of government (as there seems to be right now), then why could it not be the case that a redistribution could in fact hurt Labor ?
Then again . . I could be totally wrong about the justification you have for claiming the Coalition needs a swing just to retain it’s seats. If so, please enlightenment me. I sure could use some enlightenment.
There has been a redistribution and it is an indisputable incontrovertible mathematical fact that the Coalition needs a swing in its favour in order to hold its existing position, let alone improve it.
But there is absolutely nothing about the redistribution that means that the Coalition can’t get that swing in its favour. In fact, that’s exactly what the current polls are saying: that the Coalition will get a swing in its favour that will more than offset the effects of the redistribution.
However, if the Coalition does get that swing in its favour, it will win despite the redistribution (as you say happened in WA), not because of it.
Peter,
Your update was interesting. I was intrigued by your net state predictions, especially WA. Do you think the RSPT will not have a major effect in WA and ALP can retain Swan (notional) and Hasluck? I also assume in SA that you think ALP can pick up either Sturt or Boothby?
JD, the redistribution does not make it a mathematical fact. Swings aren’t uniform. But it is probably the case, given the way electoral dynamics work after one term.
Ben, I prefer not to do individual seats thanks.
Peter, no worries just curious.
OK, Peter, I admit that you’re correct and I carelessly and foolishly overstated my case.
But it’s still true that the redistribution mathematically favours the Government and that if the Opposition wins it will be despite the redistribution, not because of it.
“and gain net in Victoria”
Can I ask why you think that will be the outcome in Victoria for Labor? Everything seems to be going against them right now?
Rationalist quoting on Jack Strocchi said:
I meant a first term government. Obviously Howard’s government was competent, fairly unified etc but fell victim to the perennial swing of the electoral pendulum. Otherwise I stand by the above, at least in the AUS context.
I am on record as predicting…[drum roll]…that the Rudd will go to the 2010 election and achieve at least ALP 52 – L/NP 48 on 2PP. The recent polls are a little disturbing, but I can’t see the electorate buying Abbott when the devil they know is doing an effective job. So I am sticking with it, but I want some good odds, goddamnit!
Rudd MUST follow through and win on the RSPT, or else he will face a leadership challenge. The voters don’t expect miracles, but they do expect a government to do more in office than warm their bums on the Treasury seats.
On paper I think that the ALP is worth a good three terms. It will take at least two more terms in opposition for the L/NP to re-build itself from its current parlous ideological and psephological state.
You can add sociological decline to that dismal list. IMHO the L/NP is facing a serious adverse move in its demographic base, with the old L/NP tending Menzies cohort dying off an being replaced by the aging ALP tending Whitlam cohort. Also single mothers and NESBs are a growing voting bloc, reliable supporters of the ALP.
One momentous thing that has happened as a result of Minchin’s Martyrdom Operation is that politics has suddenly become interesting again.
A few years back I published a blog with the portentous title of “the Great Convergence”. In which I suggested that the homogeneous nature of the polity combined with the technocratic and managerialist style of politicians was generating a powerful policy convergence between the major parties.
Not, I know, a radically innovative theory. Its been doing the rounds of political science since Robert Michels “Iron Law of Oligarchy”, Anthony Downs “Economic Theory of Democracy” and Catley & Macfarlane’s “Tweedledum and Tweedledee”.
But the convergent moment seemed to have finally come to pass once Beazley caved into Howard on the Tampa. And Howard started to throw money at “working families”.
The election of Rudd only vindicated the major party convergence theory. Here was a guy whose policy positions were virtually identical to Howard in all except a few areas of token symbolism.
Minchin changed all that. By sabotaging the ETS he de-railed the careers of the Parliament’s two most successful and moderate men: Turnbull and Rudd. He also elevated the careers of the Parliament’s two most militant ideologues: Abbott and Brown.
Rudd’s response was to tack sharply to the Left to win back ground lost to the GREENs through the defection of pinkish ALP supporters. There was no chance that the Abbott L/NP will play me-too to that tune.
Welcome to the Age of the Great Divergence. (At least until Abbott & Co get flogged a couple of times for their Right-wing extremism on AGW and CC.)
Peter
I’ve been trying to track down poll results re response to the question “Who do you think will win?” Roy Morgan used to ask that question – has that been discontnued?