The latest semi-monthly Reuters Poll Trend figure, a weighted composite of results from Morgan, Newspoll and ACNielsen, continues the gentle trend back to the Coalition that has been evident since May. On the primary vote, Labor is down from 47.7 per cent to 46.9 per cent and the Coalition up from 39.5 per cent to 40.4 per cent. Kevin Rudd’s preferred prime minister rating is steady on 46.4 per cent, while John Howard’s is down from 40.5 per cent to 40.2 per cent.
Nostra’
If Labor get 52.5 2pp in each seat they will win every seat. Thanks for your insight. 🙂
Labor need to win 16 seats to win the election. On the current pendulum, they need to win every seat on the pendulum up to Bennelong, which is a 4% swing. However, Bennelong (an incumbent PM) and Wentworth (margin artificially reduced due to independent candidate in 04) are unlikely to fall. The WA seats of Stirling and Hasluck are also unlikely to change hands because there is a swing TO the government there.
Therefore, they have to find a minimum of four extra seats – and that’s assuming that they don’t LOSE seats (there is a swag of Labor marginals). They will have to get seats that are currently held by the Coalition with a margin 5-7% making their task all the more difficult.
The Coalition currently hold 87 seats, Labor 60, and there are three independents, of which one is retiring and will revert back to the Coalition. If no seats changed hands, the Coalition would have a majority of 26 (88 minus 62).
The last election’s 2pp was Coalition 52.7, Labor 47.3.
Assuming a uniform swing and Labor don’t win back Bennelong, Wentworth, Stirling and Hasluck.
If there is a 0.7% swing to Labor (and who knows, there could be a swing to the Coalition for all that matters), Labor will pick up Kingston, Bonner and Wakefield. Coalition would then have 85 seats, and Labor 63; Coalition majority would be 20 with a 2pp of 52 Coalition 48 Labor.
On 51/49, they would lose Makin, Parramatta and Braddon – Coalition 82 Labor 66; Coalition majority 14.
On 50/50, only Bass would change hands, the Coalition would have 81 seats and Labor 67, with the fifth Howard Government holding a majority of 12 seats.
If Labor achieved 51% of the two party preferred (that’s a swing of 3.7%) they would then pick up Moreton, Solomon, Lindsay and Eden-Monaro. The Coaliton would have 77 seats and Labor 71. The Howard Government would be re-elected with a majority of 4.
If Labor got 52% of the 2pp, they would not pick up any further seats as only Bennelong (unlikely to fall with that kind of uniform swing) is within range. The Coalition would still be re-elected with a majority of 4.
If Labor got 52.5% of the 2pp they would pick up Dobell, Deakin and McMillan, and the Coalition would have 74 seats, Labor 74 and 2 conservative independents, meaning a likely minority Coalition government.
So Labor needs 53% of the 2pp vote and a swing of nearly 6% just to get to line ball. And that’s even assuming that they don’t lose any seats of their own. This just shows how difficult the task really is for them.
I just really can’t see this happening.
183
Phil Robins Says:
August 16th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
It doesn’t really matter what the law is – Premier Beattie has given Prime Minister Howard his opening and he’s gone for it. You have to do everything right to win 16 seats in a federal election and that now seems less likely to happen.
Phil do you think the ALP will loose from here?
Historically the ‘outer’ states (essentially WA and Queensland, but occasionally Tasmania) have long been suspicious of any Canberra intervention.
Don Wigan 145
As has the NT, even though of very minor federal electoral importance. (Although Solomon may be important this time around.)
Does anyone have at their fingertips the number of elections where 16 seats or more have gone in one direction. Phil maybe surprised.
Gary Bruce 189
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/507#comments
Comment 96, by Adam.
Apart from crikey will there be other Election guides published? Did the Australian continue it election book? I have the 2001 book ( ? ) but cant find it and also Anthony Greens Fed election Guide 1996
Lord D don’t they call it a “bull run” on Wall Street ?
Adam Says:
August 16th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Can someone explain to me why people sell into a falling market, thus turning a paper loss into a real loss?
Because they’re concerned that it will contine falling and have doubts about the level of recovery.
Long term investors in “Blue Chip” shares don’t usually worry too much about fluctuations in the market such as this, only those who have borrowed heavily on the expectation of the market continuing to rise.
They sell to try and limit their losses.
I’d like to make a few points, in response to some of the many thoughtful and interesting posts.
1. There is an important difference between Kennett’s council amalgamations and Beattie’s. Kennett ditched the councils and appointed administrators, who were then instructed to cut rates by 20 per cent and introduce compulsory competitive tendering. CCT was probably more upsetting to regional Victorians than the amalgamations were. And, of course, the amalgamations also affected Melbourne.
2. Adam asks why people sell into a falling market. Lots of reasons. They may fear the market will fall further, and won’t come back to the current level for a long term. But more often, it’s a tactical decision. If you think the market will fall further, you sell shares and then buy them back at a cheaper price, and make a profit. Those who have lots of money (not me) and know what they’re doing can profit from a share market slump.
3. You’d have to expect that housing prices will stop rising, and perhaps fall, because of the rising interest rates and, more particularly, the troubles of the low-cost loan companies, like RAMS. It will be harder for people with marginal finances to get large loans at low interest rates, at least in the short term. And there could be a psychological effect, where potential homebuyers retreat from the market temporarily in the hope that house prices will fall. This could have interesting implications for the election, though I don’tknow which party will be helped most by it.
4. I agree with Graeme that Rudd is being weak on the Qld amalgamations issue. It won’t hurt Labor seats in Brisbane, and, though I think that backing Beattie might cost Federal Labor a Qld regional seat or two, there’s a terrific argument to be made nationally about states’ rights. Rudd could argue that everything Howard is doing, from Qld amalgamations to Tassie hospitals, is pork-barrelling to get himself re-elected, and he’s prepared to trample on the rights of elected state governments to satisfy his own ego. He could also claim that this pork-barreling is unproductive Commonwealth spending that won’t help the nation’s future, but could push interest rates up. Rudd should use the line that Qld council amalgamations, and Tassie hospital restructures, may be unpopular and tough decisions, but they’re making Australia more efficient and productive. This is an ideal line for a so-called “fiscal conservative”.
I think Howard’s move on the Queensland Council Amalgamation issue is mainly to try and prevent losing the whole 16 seats needed for Labor to gain Government, in Queensland alone.
” Does anyone have at their fingertips the number of elections where 16 seats or more have gone in one direction?”
1975
1977
1980
1983
1984
1987
1996
2001
http://australianpolitics.com/elections/results/all-house.shtml
Sorry, I meant to say, the above list at comment 210 are elections where one party won by 16 seats or more.
Beattie is acting like an Emperor in Queensland…the effects will hurt in the rural seats like Flynn i think Labor will get less than 6 seats perhaps only 3-4 in the long run then Rudd has to find another 13 seats…and this is before he probably loses Cowan and Swan in WA hmmm the maths show how hard it is for Rudd to win Latham really did buggered the ALP up and even Kerry O’Brien mentioned on the 04 telecast that its looking like a 2 election victory…time will tell but Howard is back on the march and the Costello issue has blown over…
Scorpio asked (I think) if anyone could remember election campaigns as interesting as this one.
well I can. The 1993 “Fightback” election was absolutely fascinating, and on election morning no-one really had any clear idea of who would win.
I must say the “dismissal” election of 1975 had a fair bit of excitement to it as well, though the result was hardly indoubt.
On a state basis, as I’m in Victoria, it would be hard to beat the defeat of Kennett in 1999. The result was unexpected, and also wasn’t clear for nearly a month after polling day.
However, I agree that this year’s election is shaping up to be a beauty, and I feel there are many many twists and turns to come yet. The state of the economy is uncertain, and neither side of politics has really brought forth its major policies yet in areas like education, health and taxation.
This Q’l’d council amalgamation thing is weird from any number of points of view, more ably discussed by others who have a grasp of the constitution, any connections, if at all, between effects in the market place and movements to or from gov’t (thank you, Possum), the interactivity or not between local, State & Federal issues when it comes to voting. BTW, thought it a bit stupid of Beattie to threaten fines, and this seems to be one of the things on which Rudd has hung his ?reluctant? support of Howard’s legislation. However, the thing that’s got me about this whole protracted campaign is that there doesn’t seem to be a day goes by without almost anarchic movement going on; some caused by Howard’s frenetic flailing about, some by Costello land mines going off, some by events & processes outside Fed. Gov’t. control, such as the stock market getting hit by the credit problem. WTF is going on?
Anything can happen and it could come down to a few seats…im sure we’ll all be watching the telecast on November 3rd….
#202
The pendulum is a good guide in telling you what seats Labor will get, Labor could win seats which have larger margins like Blair, Herbert, Page, maybe Leitchardt, (that 10% plus margin is inflated by personal vote of retiring member Warren Entsch) and Bowman (the sitting member has been involved in a scandal) while not winning say Bennelong or Wentworth.
For example Labor in 2004 won Parramatta and Richmond off the Coalition while losing a bunch of other seats.
Correction on post 215, I meant the pendulum is not a good guide in telling you what seats Labor could get with swing needed to win government.
What evidence is there for this Nov 3 date?
Bloody hell, better not be, I’ll be overseas…. and I want election partyyyyyyyy!!
Glen, I agree with you that it will come down to a few seats, and, though I’m not a partisan like you, I do think it will be a big challenge for Labor to actually win the 16 seats needed. With a strong economy, I can’t see a Labor landslide, irrespective of what the polls are showing now.
It will be a great election night, particularly if it’s on November 3rd. That’s because daylight saving will have begun. You’ll get the NSW, Vic and Tassie results coming in first, then SA half an hour later, then Qld half an hour after that, then the NT half an hour later, and WA (which I think has decided to go with daylight saving now), in the following half hour. I’d be surprised if either side has claimed victory or conceded defeat before the WA trend is clear (certainly not before 10pm AEST).
So it’ll be a great election party, with extra beverages required. Start stockpiling the corn chips and dips!
Tony i agree i think it will hinge on WA…after all the Coalition has to hold 2 marginals there and the ALP has to hold 2 marginals as well…i think the Coalition will take those 2 seats to offsets losses in Tasmania apart from that i think it will be a line ball either the Coalition by 4 seats or the ALP by 3 seats…we could have the Prime Minister lose his seat and yet his Government be returned what a victory speech that would be….
I think that Howard will be returned with such a small majority that Labor will get in by 2010…
Lefty Howard has hinted that Parliament will sit after APEC thus October is out of the question and as if he’d want to wait till the RBA gets another chance at a rate rise on the 7th of Nov…thus the 3rd i believe it shall be.
Well I say bring on fixed terms so we political junkies can organise our diaries and schedules well in advance!
The only way that the Qld Council issue will affect the the Federal vote is if the electorate is looking for a reason to keep Howard and the Coalition.
Do you really think anyone cares if it is the Shire of Moroochy or the Greater North Coast Council that collects their garbage every Thursday night?
This whole issue is about a small number of National and Liberal local politician boofheads who are going to lose their power, prestige and position.
This emu will not fly.
Glen, Parliament was ALWAYS going to sit after APEC as the Canadian Prime minister will be Adressing Parlaiment.
Well Frank what’s your tip?
I think it’s far too early to tell who’ll win the election, though the current polling and the “it’s time” factor push me towards Labor at this stage.
I also think that, as we get closer to the election, and into the leaders’ debates, there’ll be a bit more focus on whether John Howard will serve a full term, whether Costello is set to take over etc. I actually think Howard needs to say that he’ll serve two years and go to the backbench, to allow the party to choose his successor, or something like that. If he keeps up his “as long as the party wants me as leader” line, the electorate will think he’s lining up to bail out soon after the election. If the voters of Bennelong think that, they’ll vote for Maxine, irrespective of what the rest of the country votes. He’ll need to guarantee the voters of Bennelong that he’ll serve a full term, and the formula I’ve suggested might work for him.
Rudd will be full of energy, saying he’s ready to lead Australia for the next term, and the term after that. Howard will have to convince voters that he, too, has a plan and a commitment.
As in the case of Tony Blair, voters will accept a leader who doesn’t intend to serve a full term, if they trust him to keep his word. Mind you, Howard is building up a pile of debits in the trust department!
Well, I reckon First week of December, there is CHOGM in Uganda and Howard will want to be there for one last photo-op with his Commonwealth Buddies.
Seriously though, I rather doubt the RBA would touch interest rates a week before an election, or even the same month…
Didnt someone say the LNP had done big November ad bookings?
If Howard wants to play State politics, he runs the risk of being identified with and infected by the stink surrounding State Liberal oppositions.
There’s not a State on the continent where the local Libs are not on the nose. If he really wants to align himself with that lot. I reckon he could be in for some nasty surprises.
The Libs in NSW, for example, are a joke.
They couldn’t even beat a Carr/Iemma State Labor Government that was about as popular with the punters as syphillis. Now, that truly took some doing. Only a shady coalition of wingnuts and Opus Dei religious nut jobs could possible have managed it, but the Libs came through with flying colours, achieving a first class loss, Budgie smugglers and all.
Evan Says:
August 16th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
[If Howard wants to play State politics, he runs the risk of being identified with and infected by the stink surrounding State Liberal oppositions.]
You can add the WA Libs to the list with all their in-fighting over the leadership.
I don’t think the appearance or non-appearance of the Canadian Prime Minister in the House of Reps will be a deciding factor on the election date. I think only George Bush, or perhaps the Queen, could make that sort of difference. But Howard will want APEC to proceed before he goes to the polls, and, if he is to be believed, he does intend to have Parliament sit in September.
If he leaves the election day much beyond early November, Labor will accuse him of being afraid to go to the people, given that his three years was up in October.
Incidentally, does anyone have any info about Australian political leaders who went beyond their alloted terms before having the election, and still won? My gut feeling is that this would seldom have happened, but I defer to the electoral history gurus on this one!
Adam back at 198
Its all about the certainty equivalents of downside risk, sauced with a drizzle of margin calls.
In the general sense, people hate the idea of big losses, meaning they’ll take a smaller sure loss to avoid the possibility of what they think might be a bigger loss.And enough of them will do that more times than not, which is why downswings in the stock market (or any similar market) overshoot.
The smarter insto traders fleece these tools like a Barcoo ringer.
I’ve got to agree with Greeensborough Growler. I don’t see the Queensland Council issue being a winner for Howard. It’s popular with the political types and media but Mr. Joe Average doesn’t care. All Labor has got to do is produce a report which says the status quo on Councils will mean huge rises in Council Rates and people will run away from Howard intervention. It hasn’t been an issue any where else in the country.
Let me be a bit provocative here.
Rudd is supporting Howard in Qld because
(a) Howard is right: Beattie should not impose council amalgamations. If people in Woop Woop want their own council, why should they not, provided they are prepared to pay for it? Kennett was wrong on this (and paid the price in 1999) and so is Beattie.
(b) Labor is historically in favour of more power for Canberra and less power for the states. Howard’s conversion to Whitlamism is to be welcomed. All these new powers he is creating for Canberra will be very useful for the next Labor government.
Tony #230 – the sitting for the Canadian PM will go ahead because to cancel it, the PM would have to announce the election date while APEC is on. So he can have that week’s sitting and announce the election the weekend of 15/16 Sep for 20 Oct. Earliest data available. If it’s not called that weekend, another week of sittings, then just pick your date from 27 Oct to 8 Dec.
And I’m drawing a distinction about the date the election’s called and the date the writ is issued. The rolls close on the writ date, not the date the election is announced. They usually announce it a day or two before the writ is issued on a Monday, so the state Governors can be rounded up to issue the Senate writs. However, with the new close of roll arrangements, the PM may be tempted to get the writ issued at once so the state’s don’t play silly buggers with the Senate writs.
Adam back at 198
Here is a link to an article about the original maistro of share trading, Jesse Livingstone which will give you a lot of information about the best and most profitable way to invest in shares and not only, not get burnt on a down-turn, but use it to your advantage.
http://www.zealllc.com/2004/jesse08.htm
Just wanting to know, what is the latest date an election can be called for November 3? I believe it would be sometime in late September/early October.
Adam,
Or alternatively, Rudd is simply doing a Clinton and agreeing with Howard in those areas where not to do so would possibly lose him votes, and disagreeing with Howard in those areas where to do so wins him votes (in aggregate).
The secondary, quasi-Machiavellian benefits for the ALP of successfully using this strategy all the way to government are, say, contained nicely in your option (b) 😉
Sorry, Jesse Livermore.
The minimum campaign is 33 days. Polling day a Saturday, count back five Saturdays and the writ issued on the Monday after. Maximum campaign 9 weeks.
Antony, point taken. I was really referring to my view that a proposed speech to Parliament by a Canadian Prime Minister, per se, would not jeopardise John Howard’s desire to call the election for the date most suitable to him. I reckon Oct 27th is very feasible. Nov 3rd puts us another week closer to a possible interest rate rise (though with the share market’s antics at the moment, who knows now whether this will still be a goer when November comes round?), and also eats into the long Melbourne Cup weekend, when Victorians like to disappear to the coast for four days. However, I don’t think that in itself would stop an election, but it might it harder for the Libs to get poll workers in Victoria. I still think Victoria is an interesting state in this election. A swing of 5-6% or so there would deliver a fair bit to Labor. Anything less, of course, would deliver buggerall. The Libs might also hold a hope of winning Bendigo, though there’s no sign they’re putting special effort into the seat.
Possum is on the money.
Writ for 3 Nov could be issued as late as Monday 1 October. This is a public holiday in NSW, ACT and WA. There has been a rumour out of Canberra for some time that the government would go for a 7 week formal campaign, wear the opposition down, or perhaps wrestle the electorate into submission. The 2004 election ended up as a 6 week campaign, which was caused by a few timing issues after the government needed to issue the writ to cancel Parliament, but had to go one week longer on the campaign to avoid election day on Rugby League Grand Final weekend.
[There is absolutely nothing in this to ground more than general aspirations,]
The people of QLD gave the current state government two landslide victories, which gave him a mandate to govern the state. Local councils are matters of state law, hence he has the mandate to reform local government.
This is exaclty the argument Howard used to justify WorkChoices.
I just hope the referendum includes the following question:
“Do you approve of the Federal government forcing your council to accept the construction of nuclear reactors?”
And:
“Should the Federal government repeal the WorkChoices industrial relations legislation?”
233
Adam Says:
August 16th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Rudd is supporting Howard in Qld because
(a) Howard is right: Beattie should not impose council amalgamations.
(b) Labor is historically in favour of more power for Canberra and less power for the states.
Adam, I am a Queenslander, consider myself fairly in tune with the local political scene and to be totally honest, I don’t have a bloody clue what either Howard or Rudd stand to gain from the position they are both maneuvering in to.
IMHO, they should both stay well out of it altogether and let the matter be sorted out by the locals.
It’s overdue, needs to be done and should be done. Beattie’s timing is a bit out, again IMHO.
Possum, I did note today that Rudd disagreed with the Government on the issue of uranium sales to India. This shows that there are some issues where he IS prepared to differ. It’s a smart issue to differ on, because it will help get Green preferences.
While I think Rudd could have made some capital backing Beattie on amalgamations, instead of opposing him, in general I agree that Rudd is running a sensible campaign by backing Howard on a host of issues. oordinary punters always say they dislike Oppositions who just oppose everything, and whinge about everything a government does. You certainly can’t accuse Rudd of that.
Tony,
A 5% swing in Vic would gain the ALP 1 seat.6% would gain them 4 seats.Which highlights an interesting thing about this election and the way the seat pendulums stack up.Theres a certain threshold for a swing to the ALP in most states where if they go past it, delivers large quantities of seats with only marginal increases.
[Well I say bring on fixed terms so we political junkies can organise our diaries and schedules well in advance!]
Yes please! I wish we could vote for local, state, and federal on the same day, every four years.
[There has been a rumour out of Canberra for some time that the government would go for a 7 week formal campaign, wear the opposition down, or perhaps wrestle the electorate into submission.]
Is this on the record or off the record? 😛
Victoria is already ALP’s strongest state, with 49% of the 2 party preferred vote last time. A 6% swing in Victoria is highly unlikely, especially in rural/regional areas where the most marginal Coalition held seats (McEwen, Corangamite, McMillan) are concentrated.
More likely they need to concentrate on Ballarat and Bendigo which Labor only hold by 1% or less.
As much of a pasting as the Libs are getting in NSW, are ALP’s only definite gains Lindsay, Page and Parramatta? Are there any others I’ve missed? There are others which could go, Dobell, even maybe Paterson and Robertson, as well as Bennelong and Wentworth, but they are not as likely
I have also had a go at looking at other states
VIC – No definites, but there are a bunch around the 5-7% mark, Deakin, Corangamite, La Trobe, McEwen, McMillan, no definites, any pickups?
SA – Three less than 1%, will definitely go, Makin, Kingston, Wakefield. Others that could go: Boothby and Sturt
TAS – I think Bass and Braddon may still go despite the pork-barrelling, too smaller swing needed
ACT/NT – Only one in contention is Solomon. Have not heard of it, but it is only 2.8%, and if the swing is on which it seems it will be, it will go.
Left the two “doozies” to last
WA – Did I hear the ACN was 52-48 Lib in WA (someone confirm please – might be completely wrong). If this is the case, it is still a 3.5% to the ALP, which means Hasluck and Stirling will go. Why is there people on this site saying the Libs will pick up 2 seats in WA? Have I missed something?
QLD – Council Mergers could be a factor, one way or another. At the last ACN, it was 57-43 ALP (is this right?). The new laws could affect this
Definite Gains: Bonner, Moreton
Possibles: Herbert, Longman (maybe not because of Mal Brough), Blair, any others?
Could the amalgamations pop up some high profile independents, and stuff up everyone’s analyses?!
I know that people have put lists of seats up before, but this is the first time I have actually sat down and looked at the situation. I’d like feedback on this list, as well as any seats I have missed. How close am I to the mark?
My conclusion. This means that Rudd might need a swing of around 6-7% to get 16 seats. Based on the 2004 results, this will mean Rudd needs 53-54% TPP.
Is Howard as far behind as everyone says he is?…..