May 11 2007 Tony Blair's departure

You might have heard Tony Blair boasting last night that over his decade in government, the country had had economic growth in every quarter. From memory, John Howard can't quite claim the same, having endured a quarter or two (although not consecutively) in the negative. 

New Zealand and Canada have also had similar experiences, with the lowest interest rates, inflation, unemployment etc etc in generations/centuries. This, of course, has meant wonderful electoral success for anyone lucky enough to get elected in the mid to late 1990s (having had predecessors who did all the dirty deregulating work, enduring recessions etc.)

As I've noted many a time,  Howard's electoral record is ordinary. Certainly he's never had wins approaching any of Blair's three.

I've dusted off and updated this old table, which also includes our state governments, and shows that, along with Geoff Gallop (and to a lesser extent Bob Carr), Howard has been the mediocre modern electoral performer.

Recent government electoral performances

By the by, for a while now I've had a bet going with Tasmania's Peter Tucker that there will be, at the next elections, changes of government in Australia, New Zealand and Britain. I've put up $20 to his $200.

If any of the jurisdictions don't change government, he gets my $20. The only one I'm iffy about is Britain.

Two party preferred seat graphs

A while ago I began making little gif file graphs of two party preferred votes in individual seats, like those shown in each seat's page in the 2004 pendulum. They are from 1984 to 2004 (for those seats that have been around that long).

Not sure whether I'll be able to complete the 2007 pendulum, given other commitments, so I've uploaded those gifs in the meantime. They allow for redistributions and are retrospective, which means, for example, that Parramatta is shown as Liberal-won in 2004 because a subsequent redistribution has notionally made it so.

Horizontal lines are ten percent apart.

Here is the directory. Not all seats are there. Click any file for image. 

May 10 "A clever politician"

It is without doubt in Labor's interest that people believe John Howard is a good/crafty/clever politician (as suggested a while ago). Politicians do things for political - rather than sincere, national interest - reasons, they are by definition manipulators. Certainly when Howard was up against Keating he benefited from the view that the then PM was the best politician in a generation while the pretender was just an honest toiler, telling it like it was.

But is the ALP, as Mr Luntz below might put it, over-reaching? The idea is out there anyway: folks already believe Howard is a brilliant pollie (and, relatedly, loose with the truth). Why labour the point?

Anyway, if you want to get a concept across, you don't blandly state it a hundred times. Instead you imply it, skate around it, talk about some of the causes, associations and implications. It takes hold if you let people do the dot-joining themselves.

Maybe they're trying to insulate against another episode in the Tampa/kids overboard genre.

May 8 Nicholson cartoon

On the budget; a fine punch-line.

May 7 Budget bits & pieces

Howard's departure

How's this for an only slightly far-fetched scenario? A well-received budget, coupled with Labor's recent mis-steps, Howard's IR backdown and a bit of sampling luck, see the next Newspoll narrow markedly to, say, 54 to 46 or 53 to 47.

Consensus immediately has it that the landscape has been transformed; "Conviction politician back in the game", shouts the Oz editorial headline.  It is agreed that bit by bit, inch by inch, the Master is clawing back his terrain. We've been here before, and Howard will prevail.

And then ... the Maestro retires, for "family reasons". Poor Peter takes the government to a thumping defeat. Howard's history book entry remains undiminished.

Shadow Treasurer Why isn't this man Labor Treasury spokesman? Probable answer: he's said one too many vaguely contentious things in the past - which would make good Coalition campaign fodder - such as farmers are over-subsidised etc. He has been known to express interest in policy, which will never do.

The man in the job, Wayne Swan (signature tune here), isn't particularly bad at it, but he always looks and sounds like a politician reciting his lines, staying on message, terrified of deviating from the script and actually saying something interesting.

Lindsay Tanner, on the other hand, has believability. 

But maybe they're right: as you often read here, it is - in our less than perfect electoral world - better to be boring than risky.

May 4 Howard's IR backdown/softening

Such a thing was anticipated - almost word for word - here a  little over a month ago. 

May 3 Frank Luntz

I'd never heard of him, but I caught Frank Luntz on Lateline last night. He's an American political pollster/strategist/language manipulator who has done much work for the Republicans. He is apparently responsible for use of the benign phrase "climate change" over "global warming".

Apart from unsolicited schmaltz  - "I've always loved Australia - although I haven't been there yet" (someone obviously told him that sort of stuff goes down well here) - he spoke lots of sense. More than we tend to get from Australian counterparts, more than some other Americans we could mention. 

He reckons the Democrats consantly "over-reach" - on the war and everything else. We get a bit of that here too, eg "IR/climate change/David Hicks is going to win Labor the election!", although over-reaching in Australia probably applies to whichever political party is in opposition at the time.

Conflicting thoughts

Luntz described people having conflicting views on the Iraq war - that is, the same individual has several apparently irreconcilable positions - and said this was something new and unique. 

But I reckon that is a feature of human attitudes to anything. See IR in Australia; see just about any issue. The task for politicians is to tug at the strand favourable to them without ruffling the others.

May 2 The trouble with Julia

A fellow by the name of Mark Latham, you may recall, used to reckon that you can't win an election if you don't stand for anything: the mob wants to see some gumption. After delivering the worst opposition result since 1977, the message was tweaked to: what's the point of winning government if you don't stand for anything?

I reckon Julia Gillard is still caught in the first story, she thinks inside the political narrative and plays to the gallery. Perhaps she attends a lot of branch meetings, where the tough talk no doubt goes down well.

(This, meanwhile, is a classic Howard-Heffernan, Howard-Abbott, Howard-Slipper et al double act.)

Business and Labor

Recall that Latham's difficulties with the business community didn't become news until after the election. In that way Rudd's problems are bigger, because business people only get one vote each, but this goes to broader community misgivings.

May 1 Newspoll says 57 to 43.

In the Oz. 

April 30 IR reform

Haven't been able to follow the ALP conference much. Presumably Rudd had good reason to announce that Industrial Relations Commission thingo, and not - even if he really reckons it's a smashing idea - wait until after the election.

As I've noted on numerous occasions, if anything keeps the Coalition in power, it's likely to be IR in particular, and the economy in general.

"Time's up"

"Times' up" is apparently a conference slogan. Very "in", it buys into the accepted story about what was important in Whitlam's 1972 campaign. But who is it aimed at? Just the faithful. 

From memory they all left the 2004 conference with a spring in their step. Hope Rudd's not trying to create something called "momentum" - one of the great post hoc descriptors.

We don't really know that "It's time" was a good slogan, that it and the jingle won net votes in 1972. With hindsight, because Whitlam won, it became emblematic.

Best to take care when trying to replicate lessons from the past. You wouldn't plan a military campaign based on the legend of Gallipolli.

And enough mit the violent language, Julia.  See what I mean by her having a touch of the Lathams? Goes down well in the branches, no doubt.

April 25 Me in Crikey

All going well, I should be in Friday's Crikey, on Green support. In the meantime, here's a piece I had at the same place, on April 10, on pollsters.

April 23 Nielsen says 58 to 42

Here. So does Galaxy, here.

April 17 Newspoll says 59 to 41

So postponing the PM's departure for another fortnight? Time's a-running out.

Malcolm replies

Malcolm Mackerras has responded to the email I sent him on behalf of Peter Andren, see immediately below.

"I am predicting two Labor, Two Coalition one Green and one Andren [in NSW]. The senator I see him as edging out is Marise Payne who is a progressive Liberal. I would have thought Andren would have no trouble getting preferences from anyone who believes that Coalition Senate control has been a disaster. But he may also be able to get preferences from those right wing parties who do not like progressive Liberals. And that applies particularly to those right wing parties opposed to Work Choices.

...  The reason why I think he will win is that I think the disaster of Work Choices will drive the Coalition vote below three quotas. His problem will be if there is any sufficient minor party vote willing to transfer to the Coalition.

By the way one thing he should do is try to get Family First preferences. Surely they would prefer Andren to Payne? After all they do say they are opposed to Work Choices. ...

Cheers, Malcolm."

April 16 Peter Andren's public funding

Peter Andren responds to this post of a couple of weeks ago, in particular the question at the end. Writes Peter:

You posed the question whether I will be giving any excess public funding to community causes. I certainly will. I propose to spend about the usual $40k (self funded, not soliciting donations) and if I get 4% obviously there will be a hefty amount to distribute to various projects.

PA also wondered if Malcolm Mackerras has elaborated on his confident prediction of success, particularly vis a vis preference flows. 

I've popped Malcolm an email and will post response.

April 15 Milne on Rudd

In the Sunday Tele, Glenn has a point or three re Kevin Rudd's vulnerability in terms of judgement, honesty and hypocrisy. But it really just boils down to the first one: judgement. If that's wonky, then views about the other two follow.

As contemplated here, and, earlier, here, the danger for Rudd is not Latham-like but Downeresque: that he gets caught up in the euphoria of his own unbelievable popularity, starts thinking he really is the messiah, this is all a doddle, he can't put a foot wrong - and makes some shocking calls.

Still can't see Rudd losing the election if he's still leader - which he probably will be - but if he takes the Alexander route his likely replacement is the Crean-Carr-Age favourite, Julia Gillard. That'll mean a fifth term for the Coalition government.

(Being caught fibbing isn't in itself fatal to election chances: I seem to recall John Howard being caught tell porkies about meeting with Kerry Packer in early 1996.) 

But overall I still favour the hypothetical Beazley leadership a bit more than Rudd. Beazley's ego was more in check. Btw, if you think I'm strange making such calls, you should talk to Peter Van Onselen of Edith Cowan University, half the team (the other being Wayne Errington) behind an upcoming Howard bio. He believes Beazley would have won, but Rudd probably won't.

April 12 Federal opposition leader ... Mr Rudd visited Vietnam last week, and obviously made quite an impression. Larger version here. Apologies to Mr Leak.)

Electoral law changes begin Monday

See AEC press release.

Note the absurdity of having compulsory registration but making it increasingly onerous (for the 15% or so without a driver's license) to get on the roll, get back on the roll, or change address. 

In some countries (eg Germany, I think?), where enrolment is voluntary, they jolly well put you on the roll when you come of age, change your details when you move, and so on, and send you a letter telling you. If you don't want to be on electoral roll you have to tell them.

As Simon Jackman has noted, voting is also compulsory in Australia, but you only get fined if you do the right thing and enrol.

Maybe the new "Australia Card You Have When You're not Having an Australia Card" can rescue us from this shemozzle.

April 11 The pollsters

I had a piece in Crikey yesterday (item 14, subscription only), mainly on Galaxy's impressive record since 2004.

My ranking of pollsters' average two party final result closeness used calculations in this Excel spreadsheet. Hopefully self-explanatory.

April 9 An adjustment to Workchoices?

Could this be in the wind? A couple of journos not unfriendly to the government seem to have gotten whiff of something. .

Also a reference here to weekend reports I haven't seen.

Horses and carts

On Malcolm Farr's thesis - that Workchoices is now disliked by people not even affected by it - I suspect this is symptomatic of a government headed for defeat, rather than the other way around. That is, if you surveyed people on anything over the last few months they'd give the government the thumbs down (relative to a year ago). 

If that's so, then excising a few of the more obnoxious bits of IR won't change much.

And don't forget that when it comes to IR during the election campaign, it'll be the opposition doing a mini version of the John Hewson-GST-on-birthday-cakes shuffle, not the government.

April 3 4:30pm The polling news I: Sol's gone

Sol Lebovic has left Newspoll. Today was his last day.

End of an era, and first I'd heard of it. [Update: my attention has been directed to this and this.]

The polling news II: Galaxy hits the web

Perhaps one chapter closes and another opens. I'm pretty sure this groovy Galaxy website is new, here is public poll section. 

April 3 Newspoll says 57 to 43

In The Oz, Dennis here, tables here. Note that Newspoll's two party preferred doesn't take into account the Greens' steady decline, from seven points both at the last election and under Beazley, to four this week. That two party preferred is probably closer to 56 to 44. 

And what's Family First support at these days? (Their preferences greatly favour the Coalition.)

New South Wales

In yesterday's Crikey, Charles Richardson put the final two party preferred at the state election between 52.5 to 47.5 and 52 to 48. That is certainly a bigger pro-Coalition swing (from 56.2 to 43.8 at 2003 election) than most anticipated, belied by the small seat change, although the pendulum did correctly indicate that four percent would yield bugger all.

You'd have to heavily favour Mr O'Barrel (or whoever was leader at the time) to become Premier in 2011.

April 2 US Presidential election

(1) The Bush Administration's incompetence and unpopularity should favour a Democrat candidate next year.

(2) The two people most likely to win the Democrat primaries, Clinton and Obama, are less likely - everything else being equal - to win a presidential election than either of Republican front-runners Giuliani or McCain.

Edwards at this stage appears unlikely to emerge from the Democrat pack, but if he does maybe he has a better chance than the other two at presidential success. Being pro-war initially and then changing his mind might not please the Democrat base, but it reflects the position of most Americans.

So I've further inflated Centrebet's profits with a few bucks on Edwards. 

(Initially I wrote him off, then back-tracked (and mentioned Obama) here)

Newspoll out tomorrow

If John Howard is waiting for any hint of a break in the opinion poll traffic to announce his retirement "for family reasons", he'll be watching tomorrow's Newspoll.

Most observers seem to reckon Kevin-mania has reached its peak, and they're probably right. Rudd's poll performance should drop to realistic levels ... in the near future.

The much-mentioned "glass-jaw" might protude a little more.

March 30 Carmen takes a bow Just in a psephological sense ...  Carmen Lawrence was the only premier in Newspoll history to remain preferred as premier over the new incumbent after losing an election (in 1993, at which she minimised the electoral damage of WA Inc). Since federation, the Federal ALP has received just one positive by-election swing while in government (I learnt this from Adam Carr), and that was Carmen in Fremantle in 1994.

Whatever the electoral "it" factor is, she has it. And other qualities, as I noted in the intro of this piece four years ago. 

But the ALP is more comfy with leaders like Simon Crean, Mark Latham - and, of course, Kim Beazley and Kevin Rudd. 

Peter Andren aims for Senate It'll be hard for him to win. A strange decision, as you'd have to have favoured him in the new Calare, with Labor preferences. But if he gets up he'll wield much more influence. [Update: a reader tells me Andren's forming a party, which means he goes above the line on ballot paper, which changes things. I asked Malcolm Mackerras if Andren will win, and he says 'yes'. I therefore withdraw the above and now also believe he will. Yes, it's that easy (to change your mind when you run your own website).] Hanson's sums  Pauline Hanson has Buckley's of winning a NSW senate seat because unlike Andren she'll presumably get virtually nothing in preferences. But perhaps her goal is less ambitious. She just has to pass the 4% threshold to get the big AEC public funding bikkies.

At about two bucks a vote, 4% of 3.3 million NSW voters comes to about $260k, almost twice the amount in the less populous Queensland.

In the past, Andren has (I think) spent such surplus funds on his electorate. What will he do this time if he gets 4% but doesn't win?

[Update: Laurie Oakes wrote lots about this last week in The Bulletin, including:

"Ms Hanson spent $35,426 on her unsuccessful [2004] campaign for a Queensland senate seat, but received $199,886 from taxpayers under the public funding scheme. A nice little earner in anyone's language."

Up-update: "I don't do it for money", says Hanson.

Peter Andren responds.]