Australia 2007

[Verily]

I can't find a thread for this one, so I thought I'd open one. The election is probably going to be held in late 2007 (though theoretically it could be held in early January 2008).

John Howard will be trying to be reelected as Prime Minister for a fifth term, but that's beginning to look like a remote possibility. Howard's Coalition, consisting of the (right-wing) Liberal Party, the National Party, and the Country Liberal Party, trails the opposition Labor [sic] Party distantly, mostly because of Howard's support for the Iraq War but also because of general discontent with Howard's government.

The Coalition has governed Australia nationally since 1996, but, since 2002, every Australian province and territory has been governed by the Labor Party. The most recent poll gives:

Labor: 60.5% (-1)
Coalition: 39.5% (+1)

Two-party preferred. (Only the Australian Greens stand a chance of breaking into second place anywhere, and they'd lose any instant run-off.)

John Howard, Prime Minister
Approve: 46% (-3)
Disapprove: 49% (+5)

Kevin Rudd, Leader of the Opposition
Approve: 67% (+2)
Disapprove: 19% (-2)

Link: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/searchSimpleResults/iw/1/keyword/howard%20and%20rudd

[Verily]

The ALP's crushing lead shows no signs of abating:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/15157

First round:

Labor: 51.5% (nc)
Coalition: 34% (+1)
Greens: 7.5% (+0.5)
Family First: 2% (+0.5)
Democrats: 1.5% (-0.5)
One Nation: 1% (nc)

Second round:

Labor: 62% (+1.5)
Coalition: 38% (-1.5)

This is by Roy Morgan Research; Newspoll for The Australian is showing virtually identical numbers (61-39). Rudd also leads widely as the preferred Prime Minister over Howard, 49-36.

[Verily]

Howard himself may lose his seat, or at least would if the election were held today:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/15766

The ALP's massive lead continues. 60-40 in the last poll, from May 17.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/15755

[Verily]

I find it highly unlikely that Labor will manage to surpass the 50% mark in first preferences. Once it becomes clear that Labor is headed for a massive majority, much of the left, reassured as to Howard's defeat, will start parking their first preferences with the Greens, who could easily manage 10-12% in first preferences and quite a few second-place finishes.

[Verily]

I find it highly unlikely that Labor will manage to surpass the 50% mark in first preferences. Once it becomes clear that Labor is headed for a massive majority, much of the left, reassured as to Howard's defeat, will start parking their first preferences with the Greens, who could easily manage 10-12% in first preferences and quite a few second-place finishes.

My belief is that the Greens primary vote will not surpass 2004. I think Labor will be making the point, and I assume many commentators too, that Labor will have to bring down some sizeable margins to win, since there are very few genuinely marginal coalition seats, so Labor has to look at 3,4,5%+ margins - including seats like Bennelong (Howard), Wentworth (Turnbull - which would be a pity since he's one of the few high profile Libs I have time for) etc etc. So to bring down those margins uniformly across the country - Labor must make an effort on getting as much of the primary vote as possible, and not relying on Green preferences.

Wentworth is quite an interesting case - a small but useful voting bloc is the sizeable Jewish community. They are on the whole quite left-wing socially, but like strong economic management. What they did in 2004 - was to give 1st pref to the Greens (over the Iraq war and the environment), but give the 2nd preference to the Libs.

The thing that I find strange - is even if Rudd surpasses Howard's performance in 1996 - the Labor majority will likely still be under 20 seats.

Could be. I don't claim to be really informed about Australian politics.

[Verily]

The Liberal Party is only called that as a tribute to Alfred Deakin; the name has nothing to do with ideology.

Yes and no. The Liberal party was definitely based on a foundation of economic liberalism - free enterprise etc etc. Mind you it was under Menzies in the 50s' that the Australian welfare state really was established.

The Liberal party was from it's very start under Menzies a rather Protectionist party.. there has really been nothing Liberal about it.

Oh, and I'm rooting for the Mega-ALP landslide obviously. Though I hope the Democrats and Greens can hang on.

Sadly, the Democrats are almost certainly doomed, but the Greens will probably have a good election, maybe gaining a couple of new Senate seats.

[Verily]

Those seem like awfully low swings given the polls we've been a seeing. 55-45, which has been on the low end of Labor leads, gives the ALP 92 seats to the Coalition's 56.

[Verily]

I heard from a friend that Howard was set to call it last weekend, but he got some nasty internal polling... basically the only things that were going right for him.... started to go bad.

A lot of Liberals are angry that Howard is delaying this - and it is delay. If he's waiting for poll numbers to improve... he's never going to go.


John... it's time.

Might enough Liberals in vulnerable seats revolt and force an immediate election?

[Verily]

When would they have to call the election by the latest?

December IIRC

I'm pretty sure he could theoretically go into January somewhat, though Howard himself has ruled that out.

Btw, I was completely thrown for a moment by "summer plans" before remembering that it's spring in Australia right now, not autumn.

[Verily]

According to an election calculator (yes, one exists!) the most recent poll that gave Labor 59% Coalition 41% would suggest:

Labor 119
Coalition 31

I can't begin to tell you how unlikely that result is. I know - I found the calc about a month ago.

But that's pretty much what the polls have been saying since forever from what I've followed. While the Lib-Nat may have a tradition of gaining; do they also have a tradition of being more 10 points down in the polls?

In 2004, Labor led by 2 points at the beginning of the campaign. At no point over the course of the campaign did Labor exceed 52% in the polls, including immediately after Latham's major debate victory. In 2001, the Coalition led the polls throughout the campaign. In 1998, Labor led the Coalition initially, but the election was heavily influenced by One Nation, most of whose voters second-preferenced the Coalition, and the argument can certainly be made that the volatility introduced by One Nation made polls useless.

[Verily]

Even Kevin Rudd believes it will be down to the wire,

Tony Blair thought that in 1997.

Labour also had the humiliation of 1992 to remember.

Perhaps more importantly, Rudd (and Blair before him) doesn't want to be caught saying that his party is guaranteed victory, even though it is. The electorate would see such realism as hubris and punish him for it.

[Verily]

Even Kevin Rudd believes it will be down to the wire,

Tony Blair thought that in 1997.

Labour also had the humiliation of 1992 to remember.

That was something of a blessing, not a humiliation, in hindsight

Dave

It was a humiliation in the sense that everyone expected them to win until the last minute. A blessing in the sense that it made their eventual victory larger and probably more lasting.

[Verily]

An interesting graph:

[Verily]

http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/elections/fed2007/polls2007/

[Verily]

I think that's 65% in Franklin.

[Verily]

I think that's 65% in Franklin.

I think it's 66. The Coalition figure's last digit looks very much like a 4 to me (although it could be a 1 - never a 5 though).

You're right, the Coalition figure does look like 34, but I really can't see a 66 in the ALP figure.

[Verily]

I saw the primaries at the state level for the poll - what's interesting is that the Green's PV is 17%.

Think they could win a second Senate seat in Tasmania?

[Verily]

Those numbers are from more than 3 weeks ago. Labor just needs to hold their seats in WA, the Libs cannot afford to lose any - so that number is good for the ALP.

But if the Libs are leading in WA (according to that poll, things may have changed by now) won't they win more seats? I don't know a lot about Aussie politics but Queensland seems to be your Alberta and your South Carolina politically.

The Coalition won WA massively in 2004 (48-35 in first preferences, basically the same as Queensland). Winning it only marginally in 2007 would be a terrible defeat for them.

[Verily]

This is a seat that the Libs should have kissed goodbye ages ago... now they really really deserve to lose.

QLD maybe quite conservative - but they have relelected a Labor state government in three successive landslides. WA, as Verily pointed out, is the only place where the government is hoping to gain seats to offset heavy losses in the Eastern states... the problem is Labor has either been tied or close enough to the government that coalition seats would be at risk.

A new geographic/demgraphic analysis came out today.
TPP - 2004 Result

          ALP - Coal.
NSW - 56-44  (48.8 - 51.2)
VIC - 56 -44 (49 - 51)
WA - 50-50 (44.6-55.4)
QLD -54-46 (42.9-57.1)
SA - 55-45 (45.5-54.5)

Captial Cities - 57-43 (49.5-50.5)

Regional Areas - 52-48 (43.8-56.2)

That shows some utterly massive Primary swngs - 14.2% - QLD, 11.2% - SA, 8.3% - WA

Swingometer gives 94-54-2 (without swings in Tasmania, ACT and NT factored in). The swing in Queensland is so massive that the calculator can't handle it; those numbers are on 52.9-47.1, the highest ALP score the calculator will allow. By hand, I can look at the seats and see that three more Queensland seats would fall on the additional swing, making it 97-51-2. One seat (Wide Bay) would have a margin of almost exactly 0.00, so it might be 98-50-2. Factoring in Braddon and Bass in Tasmania, which should fall, the result would be 100-48-2. If Solomon in NT falls, which is less certain, it would be 101-49-2. (Guesstimating a swing of 3 points in ACT, Tasmania and NT gives all three falling.)

[Verily]

List of seats changing hands in that calculation, by margin (greatest ALP victory to slightest):

Makin
Bonner
Kingston
Wakefield
Moreton
Parramatta
Lindsay
Wentworth
Eden-Monaro
Blair
Boothby
Page
Bennelong
Herbert
Hasluck
Stirling
Longman
Dobell
Sturt
Petrie
Flynn
Deakin
McMillan
Braddon
Corangamite
Hinkler
Paterson
Leichhardt
La Trobe
Cowper
Dickson
Bowman
Robertson
McEwen
Bass
Solomon
Dawson
Forde
Ryan
Fisher
[Wide Bay]

[Verily]

I don't know who to vote for in the Senate. Should I go for one of the major parties or vote for one of the minor ones, such as the Democrats? I'm asking this because my Mum has said I can vote for her! I'm looking forward to that.

Although I would normally say to vote for the Democrats, watch for where transfers go. (If I were Australian, I'd always number all of my selections rather than use the party lists; the Greens being denied a Senate seat in Victoria last time in favor of Family First was nothing short of a travesty.)