When Malcolm Turnbull is in trouble, you get Wilson Tuckey on the evening news. He free-forms on climate change policy, asylum seekers and anything else that comes to mind. (Tuckey’s seat has been vastly redistributed and he’s in danger of losing it to the Nats; hence recent fondness for publicity.)
Thanks to this week’s Newspoll, we should get a Wilson-free fortnight. But the next one will probably bring him back.
- This isn’t the first 52 to 48 poll for the Rudd government. In September last year, Nielsen came in with those numbers (51 to 49 if preferences are allocated like Newspoll does) but in that case there was a corresponding change in preferred PM. Most recent Nielsen, with polls back to 2007 election, reminds us that there should be another next week or week after.
Update: Read Dave Walsh in comments on redistributed O’Connor. I asked Antony Green for notional primary votes in redistributed O’Connor (based on 2007 election), and he obliged, adding that the state election numbers at the new O’Connor booths might be more relevant. Indeed, as the table below shows, the federal numbers have Tuckey romping home, but state ones if repeated would point to a likely National win, assuming Labor (and Greens?) direct preferences in that direction.
O’Connor primary support |
||||
| 2007 election results | New margins based on 2007 federal results | New margins based on 2008 state results | ||
| LIB | 45.9 | 49.3 | 29.3 | |
| NAT | 17.7 | 9.2 | 34.5 | |
| ALP | 20.4 | 25.4 | 20.9 | |
| GRN | 6.8 | 7.2 | 6.8 | |
| CDP | 2.9 | 2.7 | ||
| FFP | 1.3 | 1.2 | ||
| ONP | 1.6 | 1.6 | ||
| Oth | 3.4 | 3.3 | 8.5 | |
These numbers, of course, should not be taken literally. One imagines Tuckey has a very high personal vote, but he has lost most of that because he has lost most of his hold seat. The member for Kalgoorlie, Barry Haase, would have a decent one and that would be built into those notional numbers based on 2007 federal results. Tuckey is trying to endear himself to all those new voters.
Sorry can I just seek clarification on something? Is it a case of Tuckey pulls more stunts(for lack of a better word) when polling is bad or does he do more or less the same thing but gets heavier coverage when the coalition polls poorly, perhaps tendered as evidence of the coalitions dire state?
The latter, I am suggesting.
[Elaboration: In addition, if the Liberal Party is perceived on any particular day to be a rabble, Wilson is more likely to find folks sticking cameras and microphones in his face because a few choice words would fit nicely into tonight's story. But he would also be more likely to hold his tongue when his leader is "travelling well", so it works the other way as well.
This applies not just to Tuckey, nor just to current others like Cory Bernardi etc but party politics broadly (recalls Kim Beazley II's problems with backbenchers), the news process and - to get a bit pretentious - life in general.]
Actually the new boundaries make it LESS likely that Tuckey would lose his seat to the Nats.
Where previously the ALP and the Nats battled for 2nd place on primaries, the redistribution – which removed much of the farm belt around Geraldton and added a big chunk of the outback including Kalgoorlie – should ensure that Labor comfortably outpolls the National Party at the next election.
Note Morgan Poll is out at 61/39 2pp virtually unchanged from last week.
Those state figures are interesting, but I’m not sure how enlightening they are.
For a proper comparison we’d need to see the state results on the old boundaries of O’Connor. Despite the ominous looking numbers, the federal redistribution has actually reduced O’Connor’s overlap with Nat held state seats (in particular Moore) whilst further overlapping with non-Nat state seats (Eyre, Kalgoorlie).
Put it another way, I think the old alignment of O’Connor with its huge chunk of the wheatbelt was about the most favourable federal seat one could draw for the Nationals. The new geography that divides the wheatbelt can’t be helpful.
I reckon important considerations are:
- Tuckey is contesting a mostly new area so his previous presumably substantial personal vote won’t fully apply.
- Some of O’Connor’s current notional Liberal vote (based on 2007 federal election) would come from current Kalgoorlie MP Barry Haase’s personal vote, which Tuckey won’t get.
- However, as a well-known maverick, Tuckey might make up for this.
- Regarding Antony’s 2008 state election numbers applied to current O’Connor. Were they largely votes for sitting Nat members (with personal votes)? If so this is good for Tuckey. But DW’s comments above suggest not.
- There’s likely to be a swing to Labor in WA at the next federal election.
- Nationals don’t tend to do well in WA at federal elections.
- And lots of other variables.
If the ALP vote increases in sophomore swing, then it is less likely that the ALP comes third to the Nationals, therefore less chance of a Lib/Nat showdown.
Sophomore swing is a theory that newly elected members get an increase in their vote when they first face re-election. There is no sitting Labor MP in O’Connor to receive sophomore surge.
A New Zealand correspondent recently wrote asking me much the same question. I did my own calculations which were rosier still for the Nationals than Antony’s, though obviously you’d trust him over me. My response was highly detailed, so I’ve pasted it below (here’s hoping the tags work here …).
Mr Green, I was thinking Government incumbency, not seat holder. What I meant was that the ALP is likely to get a swing in WA, just to balance up a little with the rest of the country.
Federal governments usually get their highest vote on election to office, not at their first re-election. Even if WA were to record an increase in Labor vote, I suspect O’Connot would be one of the seats where we wouldn’t see that swing.