|
| |
January 30 Go
you straw man! Howling out West
Antony Green alerts us to yesterday's bizarre piece in the West Australian by
Paul "Mooner" Murray (illegally reproduced here [no more, see above,
although pollbludger has excerpts]
because of the paper's crumby website), in which Murray (former /current?
editor) correctly notes that due to the weirdness of the 2001 election (One
Nation factor), the pendulum shouldn't be taken too literally. That is, without
One Nation to siphon off Coalition votes, Labor will struggle to hold many of
its seats, and those with the smallest on-paper margins won't necessarily be the
first to fall back to the Coalition.
Quite true. But Murray is angry that Antony uses two party preferred votes. Or
perhaps it's the electoral pendulum per se he dislikes. Murray mentions Albany
(as do I in pendulum blurb - right hand frame) as a seat that, due to
the high One Nation vote last time, will have a centre of gravity firmly on the
Coalition side. But he seems upset that Antony describes it as Labor-held
with 3.7 percent margin.
That's not Antony's doing; it's a fact. Labor won the seat in 2001 by 3.7
percent (unchanged, on Antony's calculations, after redistribution). That is,
had the ALP received 3.7 percent less, Albany would have stayed Liberal. That's
what the number means. (See the WA Electoral Commission 2001
result.)
Murray also seems to think Green preference flows to Labor via Independents
don't really go to Labor. Or perhaps he thinks the Independent decides where
those preferences go. (I think he does.)
For a WA pendulum that shows primary as well as two party preferred
votes, go here.
January 29 Apparatchiks
in the sun
Dear Mr Beazley: is this
a good look? Wall-to-wall machine-men; it's almost enough to lemmingise
a person. And that Anthony Albanese's a worry, isn't he?
(And if Kim starts praising John Howard as "the most considerable
conservative politician the country has produced" and "a substantial
servant to this nation" - as he did several weeks before the 2001 election
- we'll know we're in trouble.)
I am repeating myself, but readers of this site will know by now that had
Beazley been elected leader 13 months ago, we'd now have a Labor government. But
that was then; an election due within a year and the new leader was guaranteed
of loyalty. This is different. Three years is a long time, and many seem to have
their noses out of joint.
The question must again be put: what're Peter Beattie's future plans?
January 28 Michael
Costello - forget the swing
Someone once told me that a couple of lemmings
had told him that one of the reasons for their lemming-ness
on December 3 2003 was the possibility of Michael Costello's return to the
leader's office. Apparently he's not much loved in caucus. Anyway, his
commentating, while not without its self-serving moments, is generally
nonsense-free (on Oz politics). See, eg, today's
(in which he rightly dismisses Greg Hywood's recent linear silliness).
On Labor's required swing in 2007, Costello says it may not be what it
appears on paper, which is of course true, but I would put it another way: the
size of the required swing is not that important. The 2004 result was just a snapshot at a
particular point in time, with certain (unusual) circumstances, and is not
really some sort of "base". As Costello says, the ALP probably needs
something over 51 percent two party preferred to win in three years. But that's
got little to do with the 47.3 percent they managed last year; it has to do with
everything else: economic conditions in three years, government performance,
Labor unity, the appeal of the opposition and so on. Most important: an eleven
year old government will always find it hard.
Deserving each other
Ever get the feeling both of these guys want to be
deputy? Ferguson's dad was Neville Wran's deputy in NSW, widely respected
on both sides of parliament. He was also, like his son, an old-style pre-Whitlam
Labor man. Laurie explained several years that "if Labor continues a path of fiscal conservatism and social
progressiveness, it won't go far." Albanese is more a post-pre-Whitlam
lefty. Whatever their talents, neither could be described as devastating
electoral assets.
|
 |
 |
January 27 Campaign
Managers
Two jobs I would like right now: campaign manager for the WA government, and
Lynton Crosby's in London running the Conservatives' campaign. The former will
be praised to the heavens when[?] the Gallop government is safely returned in a
few weeks. Crosby, the former Liberal Federal Director, is not likely to do that
well, but, let's face it, you or I could steer the Tories to a decent swing
against the government, and Crosby is, according to reports, already hosing down
expectations.
January 24 Gerard
Henderson ...
Gives nice plug in Fairfax
papers:
'Peter Brent, the Labor-friendly analyst who runs
the mumble.com.au website, has acknowledged that Latham "did very poorly at
the ballot box - probably worse than Simon Crean would have - because most
people just couldn't vote for him"'. The quote is from my Oz
piece last
week, but surely "acknowledged that ... " should have been "found vindication of what he'd be
saying for ten month when ..."
With the election called, I've unveiled my nearly finished WA pendulum, with
links to Antony Green, Poll Bludger and
WA Electoral Commission results at 2001
election. Data from the last election - two
party preferred swing, primary votes - are also shown in the pendulum itself.
This pendulum is still pretty rough, so if you let me know
of bad links or howlers I'll eventually fix them. Will hopefully be improved in coming
weeks, with clearer explanations etc. It is here.
January
23 2005 The
West: conviction psephologist!
You've heard of "conviction politician!", that empty accolade
showered by excitable commentators over John Howard, George Bush and another you
might remember called Mark Latham. Well, with yet another poll
(in the West Australian) showing the Gallop Labor government destined for
a drubbing, I'm sticking to my prediction of a comfy Labor win. Hence the
"conviction psephologist" - me!
January 21 Labor
odds?
A few days before the last Labor
leadership spill, I posted these odds on the 2004 election result under the
talked about possible leaders:
1.
Simon Crean is still leader: Labor 2 to 1 to win
2.
Bob Carr is leader: even money (1 to 1)
3. Kim Beazley
is leader: Labor 1 to 2 to win
4. Mark Latham
is leader: Labor 10 to 1 to win
5. Kevin Rudd
is leader: 2 to 3 to win.
That is, Beazley had the best chance and Latham
the worst.
Whoever won the December 2 2003 ballot had the world at their feet: a
honeymoon to take into the new year, less
than a year till the next poll, against a PM whose political skills, though
substantial, were (and remain) the most overrated in history, a government that has never had much of a connection with
the electorate and was, after eight years, highly vulnerable. But Latham
embodied all the wrong strategies: he "muscled up", wrongfooted the
PM, out-Howarded Howard, showed he was a "conviction politician" and all that.
As I've said on many occasion, I'll never stop believing that Bomber
would now be PM - with a comfortable majority - if there were two less Lemmings
in the world. But that necessarily doesn't mean he's the right choice this time. The
difference is that it's three years, not one. That's why the recycled Howard
analogy doesn't work for Beazley.
Lemmings of
the world unite: The cabal fights on!
Is it true you can tell a lot about about someone by their friends?
January 18 Marky Mark raps his last
Obit not
that early after all (as a reader notes). Now, if only there was an election
this year instead of 2007/2008.
A rump of bitter Lemmings will doubtless
try to install Julia Gillard, but
assuming Beazley gets in (which can't really be assumed) his chances of still
being there at the next election are only 50-50. The comparisons with John
Howard's resurrection are limited because Howard only had to endure for a year -
as Beazley would have if elected in December 2003.
It tends to be forgotten how little enthusiasm there was for Howard in 1995,
and that he was still detested by a large part of his party. The same will apply
to Beazley, and three years is a long time. Plus there's his health.
Still, if Beazley's still there at the next election, and the opposition is
united, my money will be on the ALP.
(Robert McClelland no longer
tells the story of phoning, 13 months ago, his retired football-playing mate,
endowed with earthy common sense, who advised him that going back to Beazley
would be like putting him back in the front row (or something). McClelland's was
the last vote to go to Latham. Will he grab the phone this time?)
January 17
Latham's Political obituary ...
... a little early, by me
in the Oz.
January 16
Time capsule - the case for Bomber
Days before Lemmings did their thing, I
was a guest at John Quiggin's blog, explaining why it had to be Beazley. Most of what
it says applies today. And apart from his debate performance, pretty well all
the Latham stuff transpired.
It's here. (Quiggers
changed the end of the sentence "If he gets the job, Labor should shit it
in." to "... walk in.")
You can observe my outrage at the Caucus vote - plus the evolution of the
Lemmings gallery - here.
January 15
Latham's tumble - it's in the numbers
Forget the high-falutin explanations: Latham's troubles come down to
numbers. If he had eaten into Howard's seat majority on October 9 last year, he
would have been a Labor hero and the expectation of a muscular victory next time
would have meant, as before the poll, forgiveness of any amount of self-centred
behaviour.
But they went backwards, he did "even worse than Beazley", and
like John Hewson in 1993 he was instantaneously a big fat loser. The bubble
burst. Howard is no longer scared. That's why Marky Mark is going.
(Craig
McGregor wants to inflict another six years on us. If you'd written a book
on the Lad you might feel the same.)
One of
these things is not like the other ones
Any reader of this site during 2002-2003, or of the occasional AFR
piece (eg here, here
and - to an extent - here) knows that I
was (at least relative to everyone else) rather a defender of opposition leader
Simon Crean. I actually gave him a good chance of winning an election. But his
behaviour upon his demise left much to be desired, and when Mark Latham
emerged from Caucus on December 2 2003, surrounded by smirking Lemmings,
it was mainly due to Crean's machinations.
Now it appears that, like the Simpson males, Simon doesn't learn from his
mistakes, he just keeps on making them, because if you believe what he read he's
at it again, this time on behalf of Julia Gillard, and Latham's hanging on is to
buy more time to that end.
Leadership material?
So who should Federal Caucus elect? I'll go to my grave believing that if
Beazley had been elected leader thirteen months ago the year 2004 would have ended
with a federal Labor government. But the prospect of another three years of
Beazley v Howard/Costello doesn't inspire.
Gillard seems to be the Latham-Crean candidate for the same reason as Latham
was after Crean: she's a Lemming, she's been
loyal, she's one of the boys. Gillard is one of the most impressive people in
Labor caucus, but history would truly repeat itself if she got up: elevated
before her time and for all the wrong reasons, beholden to her predecessor (Mark
Latham for Shadow Treasurer?), her political capital ultimately trashed (at
least in the short term) - another dysfunctional appointment.
(I now understand how Federal Labor remained in opposition from 1949 to
1972. One mistake, however tenuously made, leads to another, and another, and
the hole just gets deeper. Social scientists call it 'path dependence'.)
Beazley, subject to health requirements, would probably be the safest bet,
most likely to win in 2007, but we might all have died of boredom by then.
Of the other two, Rudd has many qualities, and his Queensland-ness is a big
plus, but Smith might be less annoying. More on these two here.
Moir in SMH
|
 |
January 14 Western
Australia
Morgan says 50.5 to 49.5,
a darn sight closer than Newspoll's of 56 to 44.
Both were taken late last year. (Pollbludger
has table.) Beady-eyed observers will see Morgan has started distributing
preferences as per the last election, presumably in Galaxy-fashion, rather than
gathering their own. See this piece on
federal election, which goes into pollsters' preferences down the bottom.
Newspoll still asks for second preferences only, which wasn't a roaring success
at the federal poll.
In primary support, Newspoll has the Coalition insurmountably ahead on 49
to 35, while Morgan says 43.5
to 39.5.
The Gallop Government's fluke win in 2001 was thanks to a high One Nation
vote and that party's policy of directing preferences against sitting members,
which naturally hurt the party with the most seats (ie the Court government).
Recent Newspolls have also shown trouble for the previously impregnable
Labor fortresses in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria.
I reckon it's some sort of hangover from the Federal election and, despite
the evidence, am still tipping a comfortable Labor win in WA.
WA Pendulum
Coming soon (next week?): smashingly innovative WA pendulum.
Federal Labor
You might think the Lemmings, having
shown the quality of their political nouse, would sit this one out and let the
grown-ups decide. But humans rarely learn from history, so is it possible that
Latham troops, like Crean's a little over a year ago, are determined "not
to reward disloyalty" and so will stop at nothing to keep Beazley/Rudd/Smith/Any-Non-Lemming
out of the top job?
A recipe for another person's disastrous elevation before his (or her)
time.
January 12 Straw
man of 'The Left'
Former Latham and Crean speech-writer Dennis Glover writes in The
Australian that 'The Left' should give Federal Labor a break of it ever
wants to see the end of the Howard government. "Its insistence that Labor
adopt electorally suicidal policy positions in the name of political purity robs
Labor of its support in crucial marginal electorates."
(Presumably those poisonous prescriptions have to do with mandatory
detention. Can't think of anything else apart from undergraduate Foreign Policy,
the fault for which lies with no-one but his former boss.)
But in reality, throughout 2004 - until October 9 - no-one who Glover might
classify in 'The Left' said boo to the ALP. Phillip Adams? He was frantically
ingratiating himself (although he dumped big-time after the loss). Margot
Kingston - a huge Latham fan. Whoever else 'The Left' is, they had not a word
against Latham; they thought he was the new Gough.
No, the loss belongs to Mark and his team, not the few hectoring purists who
appear from time to time.
Anyone with a memory longer than a couple of months knows that the Latham
leadership was an embodiment of all the stuff Glover advocates. He was the
muscular Outer Suburban Man. It didn't work.
 |
January 11 Dead
man walking
The question, as mentioned before: is it in his nature to go quietly?
|
January 7 Gerard,
Crikey and me
Last week I entered into a Crikey discussion on Gerard Henderson's poking
fun at journalists' wonky predictions in 2004, and yesterday Gerard Henderson
fired back. They're both here,
near the bottom.
My reply, which appeared in the crikey email but not the crikey webpage, is here.
January 2 Happy
New Year
Tsunami death toll, below, now grotesquely out of date.
Bomber Mischief
Sunday
Telegraph Galaxy poll reports NSW voters favour Latham, Beazley and then Carr to
head the federal ALP by the numbers 28, 26 and 16 percent. I wonder what voters
in arguably the most important state - Queensland - think?
Speaking of Galaxy, here, unsubbed,
is my Walkley Magazine piece on opinion polls during 2004 federal
election. Preferences get large mentions.
| |
|
=
