Go to next posts Nicholson in the Oz

welcome to               Mumble                                     =

April 26 "Record" watch

Sophie Panopolous: "This Government has won four record terms with strong policies on border protection and strong immigration laws."

!!

Mr Beazley's approval rating: a graph and a table

After regaining the Labor leadership early last year, Bomber received pretty good approval ratings, but poor voting intention ones. Now it's the other way round. Graph below has Newspoll numbers from after 2004 election - first four polls were with Latham as Labor leader - to last fortnight. 

Newspoll November 2004 - April 2006: two party preferred vote and leaders' approval ratings

Red and blue lines around the 50% mark are Labor and Coalition two party preferred (my calculations, not much different to Newspolls for this period), dashed light green is Beazley's satisfaction and purple is Howard's.

You can see that in approval ratings Beazley initially went up-up-up but then sunk lower than Latham's worst, but on voting intention he started way behind but is now usually ahead. Note also that his long term approval drop has been accompanied by a drop in Howard's. (A feature of the Latham juggernaut was that while the Lad drew the highest approval ratings in Newspoll history (before the election), he also generated some very high ones for the PM.)

In table below I've split the data into two periods and averaged each, along with 'better PM'. The two timeframes are: the first 18 opinion polls until late September last year; and the 12 since. (Two party preferred calculations are, again, mine.)

Newspoll two party preferred voting intentions, approval rating and better PM

The first seven months average out to a comfy Coalition win (52 to 48), the last seven to a probable Labor one (51 to 49). But the opposition leader met with much more 'approval' in the first period. 

If I was opposition leader, I know which set of numbers I'd rather see in the Oz on election Saturday. [The second set, beginning with 51 to 49.] 

And in case you're thinking a leader with a low approval rating doesn't have long term voting intention viability, the data actually points the other way, to a given voting intention being more durable if accompanied by a low approval rating than a high one. This is something I intend to explore in an AFR 'Lies and Stats' piece ... soon.

But, and I know I repeat myself: measurements of opposition leaders' approval ratings aren't worth much. We don't even know what the question means to respondents, and much is surely just regurgitation of what's in the papers and on telly.

April 23 Nielsen says 51 to 49

In SMH and Age. From primary support of 38 and 43, the same as the 2001 election, which washed out to 51 to 49. Back then the Greens and Dems received 5 percent each, and One Nation 4; can't find Nielsen's Green number online [update: it's 10], but presumably it's rather large, although you would be aware that Nielsen gets two party preferred from voters' mouths, rather than calculating a notional, as everyone else does these days.

However ....

If you were a Labor supporter, and you bought the hype about Howard's electoral prowess, you'd be praying the Colossus retires this term. But if you don't believe the consensus, and you'd love to see him go down at an election (so adjusting his entry in the history books) you'll want him to stay.

Retiring while Beazley is leader, and the PM is perceived as on top, would be easy. But if Labor switches while Howard is still there, then pulling stumps will make him look chicken, so he might feel obliged to stay. Again, like the Latham dynamic; he looked like he wished he'd retired while Crean was leader.

April 21 Howard's electoral record

From Howard conference a couple of months ago, table comparing Howard record with counterparts here and overseas who have been elected in the last decade or so. May be read in conjunction with this, and these slides (start with chronological and click on other ones).

The three definite non-record setters - who didn't even come close - were Bob Carr, John Howard and Geoff Gallop. It's fair to say these are the three most lacklustre pollies.

April 13 2006 Blackwood and Milne

Glenn Milne in Oz on Monday used number-crunching of Gaven byelection by ex-Labor Senator John Black and John Lockwood to suggest, as headline put it: 'Beattie's Labor is on the way out'.

Allowing for popularity of sitting members, Blackwood (as I hope the pair is sometimes called) reckon last fortnight's result was worse than it appeared, worse even than the two byelections last year. Perhaps yes, perhaps no, but the numbers breezily allocated are a little troubling in their specificity, as is the absence of other factors - like, for example, the possibility that the nature of Poole's departure might have added to the swing. (Their original paper might have dealt with these things.)

As well, Glenn repeatedly speaks of replicating the byelection swing at a general election, a pointless exercise.

And this casual assertion: "The Labor Party, when in government, would normally hold Gaven."  When Qld Labor won office in 1998, Gaven didn't exist. It was created in the next term, and the Nationals' notional margin going into the 2001 election was seven percent. In other words, if it had existed it would have been safe National.

Labor's swing in Gaven in 2001 was about 15 percent, compared (I think) to a statewide one of about 6 percent. It's truer to say Gaven is the sort of seat that has swung behind state Labor governments over the last decade, once they're in office. 

(The last time - or one of the last times - Blackwood and Milne got together, they scolded the ALP for a declining proportion of tradesmen amongst their voters over the last several decades, citing 1966, awash with the critters, as the high point to which they should return. Yes, the same 1966 as one of the biggest Labor losses in history, near the tail-end of 23 years in opposition.

From 1901 to 1966, the ALP won 5 out of 32 federal elections. (Rough count, haven't rechecked.) Since then they've won 7 out of 15. Winning isn't everything, of course, but we might remember these things when hearing calls for the party to return to the days when men were men and 'middle class perverts' (Beazley Senior's phrase) were thin on the ground. Olden days weren't necessarily that golden.)

April 7 Some very odd behaviour

I refer not to the federal MPs above, but the people they represent. This is further to notes on Kooyong voters' behaviour, below.

A little history

As you recall, the 1996 election saw a massive 5.1 percent swing to the Coalition. The 1998 election then saw a 4.7 point swing back to Labor, but thanks to (1) luck, (2) brilliant Government marginal seat campaigning and (3) something about the people who tend to live in marginal seats, Labor fell short seat-wise despite getting 51.1 percent of the vote.

(I put most emphasis on the last factor, but for an example of explanation number (2), recall a fellow called Remo Nogarotto, NSW Liberal Director in October 1998, believed responsible for holding the marginal seats in that state despite a big swing, so saving the government, and hailed as a strategic genius. His celebrity was cut short, however, when he presided over an appalling state election result six months later. These days he is involved in soccer.)

Anyway, it might be hard to believe that some seats swung to Keating in 1996, but 8 did - three in WA and five in Victoria. But more weird still, three of those then proceeded to swing to the Coalition in 1998; their current members sit above.

While there would have been some individuals who voted for Keating in 1996 and Howard in 1998, once again the most likely explanation for the behaviour in these three seats is different people moving in and out. Melbourne Ports, in particular, has an ever-changing demographic.

Update

A reader writes:

"The seats you refer to:

"1998 Melbourne Ports: Danby was unpopular outside of his ethnic constituency, bad publicity about his alleged branch-stacking and a messy separation cost him support, Labor's on the ground campaign weakened by his unpopularity among branch members, it is possible that some left-leaning voters voted Liberal in protest. Clyde Holding [who retired at 1998 election] had I suspect more of a personal vote than many other Labor MPs.

"1998 Willis: Labor's 1996 2PP vote was inflated by Cleary's high vote in 1996 when he directed preferences to Labor, many who would have usually voted Liberal in 1996 voted for Cleary followed his ticket and gave their preferences to Labor.

"1998 Curtin: I suspect this was similar to Willis, 1996 nominal 2PP Liberal vote inflated by those who voted for Rocher (I presume in 1996 he gave preferences to the Liberals) who would otherwise have voted Labor."

[Me: The Wills explanation makes much sense, less so Curtin, as it was Labor who got a swing in 1996, but at the very least we can say those independents muck up 2pp comparisons. (Also add that WA and Vic were relatively kind swing-wise to Keating in 1996.) On Melbourne Ports I'm about half convinced, and it doesn't explain the 1996 swing.]

April 5 The Colt from Kooyong

Glenn Milne, in a piece sympathetic to Petro Georgiou on Monday, has the Frydenbergers describing Kooyong as "the only seat in the parliament to have gone backwards in its share of the two-party preferred vote in five consecutive elections." Not only isn't this true (1996 was pro-Liberal), it takes in 1993, when Andrew Peacock was the member. That one wasn't Petro's fault, surely.

Newspoll quarterly

Newspoll's latest quarterly consolidatoin, released this week, has 18 to 34 year olds voting 37 Coalition, 39 Labor and 10 percent Greens, which comes to about 54 to 46 two party preferred. As with every quarterly Newspoll from the last decade - apart from one  in 1999 - there's little joy for 'young people vote for Howard!' fantasists. But it's such a good story, the facts ain't going to stop them talking about it.

April 3 The trouble with Kim

The trouble with Bomber is that he has to devote much of his energy to keeping his job, rather than doing it. This is largely thanks to Julia and Simon, but three years was always going to be a long time to keep the troops schtum. Latham was never in this position (until the election), although Crean was for much of the time.

If Beazley gets knifed later in the year, whoever takes over will have, like Latham, a clean run to the 2007 election. Two of the three people above would stand an excellent chance of defeating the government. The other is an unreconstructed Lemming who gives every indication her political modus operandi would be to, like her mentor, throw herself into some phoney 'middle Australian' narrative, light up the sky like a Kathryn Wheel and then land with a depressing thud.

Sure, we all enjoyed the show the first time, but do we really want to see it again?

I resemble that remark

New pseph on the block, Upper House, describes this space as "Left-slanted site with a cynical host, however still worth a read".

April 2 Seven and a bit (update: make that 8 and a bit) percent swing in Gaven

... which is not tooo bad for Beattie, better than a couple of byelections last year, and given that Labor won about 56 (?) statewide percent two party preferred at the last election, and this is one of those seats that Labor won't have a hope of holding when next in opposition*, it's even less tooo bad.

The glass half empty argument is that Beattie received two gifts for this byelection that are unlikely to repeat at the next state poll: Cyclone Larry and a National running rather than a Liberal.

Qld Electoral Commission results here.

Both Queensland and NSW should be interesting state elections next year. I favour Labor slightly in both.

* Labor could conceivably lose office while holding a seat like Gaven, but would likely lose it the next time.

April 1 Gaven byelection

The wonderful thing about byelections is that they are government-sponsored opinion polls with very large samples and a small error margin. The downside is that we don't really know how to interpret them. There's generally a swing to the opposition, so a small one, or even one to the government, is seen as good for the incumbent. But back in the late '80s federal Labor copped massive byelection swings but had two more election wins in them. 

We haven't had a federal byelection involving both major parties since Aston in late 2001 famously revealed a (pre-Tampa) rise in government stocks after the earlier Ryan disaster. This is a pity (and some sort of record?); despite some very silly commentary before Cunningham and Werriwa, that the might of Howard the Conqueror and the hopelessness of Labor are such that the Libs may well have won had they contested, most likely there would have been swings to Labor, which might - just might - have settled our national storytellers down a tad.

Anyway, there's a state byelection in Queensland today, a seat held by the Beattie government by 5 percent, which most expect the Opposition to pick up. The ray of hope for Labor lies in the Coalition running a Nat rather than a Lib. With Greens polling quite well, Mr Beattie's 'just vote one' mantra from 2004 may return to bite him.

Mr Bludger has it covered.

March 31 Schmuck of the Decade Victorian Opposition leader Robert Doyle is a Grade A schmuck. Not for anything he's done politically, but because he's fought like a demon to preside over not one, but two Labor landslides. All the other Lib/Nat state leaders have found one quite enough thankyou (or colleagues have made the decision for them).

Make no mistake, Bracks will win huge again (probably a slightly reduced majority) in November, and then someone else will take over as Lib leader to be competitive in 2010. We can only imagine what this will do for Robert's soul; let's hope he can put it behind him and get on with life.

I repeat myself: politicians aren't like the rest of us.

Industrial Relations

This Unions NSW commissioned Newspoll was taken with last weekend's survey that gave us Tuesday's  53 to 47. (We must assume Newspoll led with the voting questions, because putting the IR stuff first would have artificially boosted Labor's support. Anyone out there one of the 1147 Australians surveyed?)

As I've said many times, I reckon Labor is more likely to win in 2007 than not, but I don't see Workchoices playing much of a part. The majority still in their job in 18 months will be feeling secure (perhaps even smug) and the screwed won't number enough to make much of a difference at an election (and will probably be disproportionately Labor voters anyway).

But a scare campaign of more IR to come if the government is re-elected, that must be a goer.

March 28  Newspoll and ACNielsen

Have 47 to 53 and 50 50 respectively. No link for Newspoll; Nielsen in SMH and Age. On approval etc, Nielsen compares with most recent survey a month ago to find everything doom and gloom for Beazley, while over at the fortnightly Newspoll they've improved a little. But it's in the timing: if Newspoll compared with its own numbers a month ago it too would be talking approval rating disaster. (Might even warrant a link.)

(Just heard Michelle Grattan on ABC describe today's Newspoll as 'rogue'.)

Bomber's bell tolls

People sometimes ask: aren't I pleased that Kim Beazley is leading Labor today, given my carry-on from December 2003 to October 2004? Reply generally mentions stable doors and horses. Yes, I ranted repeatedly that Latham would lead them to disaster, while Beazley would have won in 2004 - and delusionally suggested they have a rethink - and I still believe it. But as noted in early 2005, that was then, and three years is a long time.

In early 2005 I put Kim's chances of surviving 'til the next election at 50:50. Now they're substantially less. Leadership rumblings become self-fulfilling and low approval self-perpetuating: people read how terrible Beazley is as opposition leader and respond to opinion polls accordingly. Approval ratings have little to do with electability, but no-one said politics was fair to individuals involved. 

Just pray Lemmings don't rise from the ashes with Latham Mk II.

Poll bludger not happy

If you're wondering what's happened to pollbludger over the last day or two (still down at 8:30am Tuesday), I popped him an email and he's having problems with his web-hoster. From the tone of his reply, they shouldn't expect a chrissie card from him this year.

March 26 Gang of eight

What do these eight people - three Labor, five Liberal - have in common? Answer: they sit in seats that have swung to the federal ALP at each of the last three elections. (Click on picture to see the seat as it was before the 2004 poll.) Membership of this gang of eight is one of Petro Georgiou's alleged crimes in Kooyong.

(Actually, the allegation against Georgiou is that Kooyong swung to the ALP the last four times, but this Lathamesque trickery measures the 1996 swing from the 1994 byelection that brought him to parliament. The 1993-96 Kooyong swing was pro-Liberal. [Update: a reader suggests the accusers might also/instead be ignoring a pre-'96 redistribution that favoured Labor, who didn't field a candidate for the '94 byelection.])

A philosophically mixed bunch, with a disproportionate number of "names"; Petro is the only Victorian. (Peter Costello, who followed two negative swings with a positive 0.4 in 2004, just missed out.) See Shaun Carney yesterday on Melbourne seat movements. 

All the above electorates were Liberal-held from 1996-8; Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan won theirs in 1998 (Swan had held same seat from 1993 to 1996) and Kate Ellis won Adelaide in 2004. 

Rudd and Swan wouldn't be human (let alone politicians) if they didn't believe in their heart of hearts that these increasing margins reflect their own hard work, popularity and all-round fantasticness, while the five Liberals probably reckon these things have more to do with changing demographics. I'm with the five Libs on this one.