Go to next posts Nicholson in The Australian

welcome to               Mumble 2004: Go to post redistribution pendulum

April 12 Two party preferred winning margins expanded

April 10 Conviction politician!

Paul Kelly pronounces Mark Latham a conviction politician, the accolade Kelly's been showering on John Howard ever since the 2001 election. Yes, we're in for a clash of the titans.

Election 2001 went like this: John Howard's Tampa position was heart-felt, in the national interest (so Howard believed) and not, therefore, open to negotiation. Here I stand; I can do no other, said he, and the electorate rewarded him accordingly.

Similarly, Latham's position on the US alliance comes from conviction, he doesn't care what others say, etc etc.

Only cynics reckon these political strategies get road-tested in focus groups to within an inch of their lives - and that's why politicians spend millions of dollars on PR firms, pollsters and advertising companies.

But Paul, God bless his generosity, takes people at face value. 

Is it possible that Latham's anti-war persona is the latest discrete phase in an ongoing strategy to define himself politically? An easy way to impress the impressionables on the backbench and True Believers in the branches?

There's Malcolm

Received a few responses plus a crikey mention for the "time capsule" this week (April 7). I'll dig out a few more in due course. In similar vein, this old Age piece begins with a couple of old quotes from the final Keating term (again with M McGregor).

And if you're interested in where Malcolm is now, and what he's up to, click here.

April 8

Herr Morgan, he finds it to be 55 to 45.

April 7 time capsule

An archive rummage for Psychologist Hugh Mackay's utterances during the 1996 election campaign was fruitless. (My recollection is that, like today, he didn't really sense Australians were ready to change government - economy doing ok etc.)

But did find Malcolm McGregor in the Fin Review, December 1995, four months out from John Howard's 40-odd seat victory.

A couple of snippets: "Howard seems to have peaked and there are signs that Keating's advantage is significant on the most crucial criteria of leadership, namely the ability to manage the economy, if recent Newspoll results are correct ... It didn't have to be this way for Howard. He has been saddled with a dud political strategy which negated his intrinsic strength as a proselytiser for conservative ideas" [My italics] See full article

And personal recollection: Malcolm, asked on the weekend before the election in March 1996 who would win, was reticent but felt that "Keating can do it".

And certainly remember 7:30 Report's political correspondent Barrie Cassidy's guess that "it'll be 1961 all over again" -  ie only one seat in it.

Imagining John Howard as PM was difficult back then, right up until the morning after election night.

Again from memory, the only person who publicly declared a big Howard win was Malcolm Mackerras. Even his 30 seat majority prediction proved conservative.

April 6

That nice Mr Morgan, who might be of about the PM's vintage, has this as well.

Newspoll still has Labor ahead, 53 to 47. Morgan puts Howard in front of Latham in terms of ... something or other.

Question: Mr Latham has said that we should bring Australian troops home by Christmas while Mr Howard has said that we should keep Australian troops in Iraq until the job is done. In your opinion should we bring the troops home by Christmas or keep them there until the job’s done?

Yes, home by Xmas:38%

No: keep there until job done: 58%

But when put like this:

Question: If the US decided to keep occupying Iraq and the US asked us to stay in Iraq, should we continue to have a military presence in Iraq or not?

Yes, have a presence in Iraq: 30%

No, not a presence in Iraq: 61%

In other words, we should stay unless the Yanks specifically ask us to.

March 31

Mr Latham's suggestion that the government had planned to bring the troops home in time for pre-election photo ops has a ring of truth to it.

Let's imagine it's October 2004, it's an election campaign, and that is indeed taking place ...

As with last year, Howard seems to greet each and every soldier, trumpeting the rightness of the war of liberation.

And the commentariat? The same pooh-poohers of last week's Latham plan would, of course, be marvelling at the PM's genius.

A certain writer in a national broadsheet, who shares a name with a singer/songwriter and football player, might put it something like this: 

"Howard's unerring judgement on Iraq has once more reaped dividends, his decision to join the invasion vindicated.

"Australia got in early with the heavy lifting and so earned the right to leave at its own choosing; eighteen months is surely enough.

"John Howard has secured Australia's security for the next decade, at minimum cost and no loss of life, in doing so wrong-footing Labor repeatedly.

"The anti-war Left never did get it: it is John Howard who embodies the Curtin legacy - in style, substance and legitimacy."

Something like that. Back in real time there's today's effort.

That's the difference between being in government and opposition. There are things you can suggest from opposition, and things you can do from government. Incumbency delivers respect and legitimacy to even the loopier endeavours. (Imagine suggesting the "Pacific Solution" from opposition.)

For example. Back in 1990, Paul Kelly wrote that opposition leader Andrew Peacock was unfit for the office of PM because he had opposed the Japanese Multi Function Polis. The Liberal leader, said Kelly, was pandering to racism. (At a subsequent social function, Peacock was famously caught on camera calling Kelly a "bastard" and promising to "deal with him after the election".)

Fast forward to 2001, and how does the same writer greet John Howard's even more rank appeals, such "I don't want people of that type coming into this country"? With applause. Further evidence of the man's unerring political instinct.

That's the benefit of incumbency. Politics isn't just a contest of ideas.

March 30

ACNielsen has 55 to 45. But 61 percent of Australians want the troops to stay in Iraq "until the job is done".

Mark Latham's undergraduate approach to foreign policy may be the death of him. He draws inspiration from Whitlam's bringing the remaining Vietnam troops home, but there can be no comparison.

Latham also presumably finds validation in the success of a previous smarmer to the comfortable but cranky outer suburban four wheel drivers - Opposition Leader John Howard in 1996, also (then) a man with no interest in the outside world and proud of it.

But the world was different then. Voters need to feel safe.

March 27

Mr Morgan, he says 55.5 to 44.5.

March 23

Mr Lebovic says it's still 55 to 45. Not quite as good as Beazley at this time of the last term, but getting there. However, if these sorts of numbers keep coming until, say, June, it's almost impossible for the government to escape again. Life isn't like that. Poor Mr Howard, he may have blown his place in the history books last year.

Just imagine ...

... that Howard had retired late last year, and Labor had installed Latham who was now recording similar numbers (to those today) against Costello. Oh, if only the man with the golden touch was still at them helm, might be the backbench and commentariat consensus, he'd have that young upstart's measure ...

March 21 Nine year itch

Bob Carr's government in NSW is in trouble. That's the electoral/political cycle for you. Don't look for any specific reasons like transport. It's the Seven (or nine) Year Itch, which pertains to many areas of life: marriage, living arrangements, employment - and governments.

Just about anyone would become a wee bit tiresome after after 9 years (to the day next Thursday). Just look at that cranky old bloke in Canberra after eight (to the day nineteen days ago) years.

As has been noted here many times, state voters are following the same script - narrowly electing Labor governments before twice returning them with thumping majorities. 

Carr, the first in, will probably be first out too.

March 18

Jose Maria Aznar ....  ... was Spanish Prime Minister until the weekend. Does any of the following sound familiar?

The centre right Aznar came to power in 1996, defeating his flamboyant predecessor, Felipe Gonzales of the Socialist Party. Gonzales, a colourful and controversial figure given to big picture rhetorical flourishes, had himself unexpectedly snatched victory from the jaws of defeat in 1993 through sheer force of personality and will.

But three years later Spain opted for safety and dullness, and their bushy-browed, dour leader had since presided over a strong economy and falling unemployment.

Aznar's very ordinariness became his political strength.

The BBC reported a couple of years ago that “Spanish cartoonists take great delight in caricaturing his shortness. Commentators harp on his career beginnings as a provincial tax inspector - pointing out that he looks more like a small-town bureaucrat than a leading statesman.”

"I am a quiet man who grows through adversity," he once remarked.

But the familiarities with our own former suburban solicitor PM don’t stop there.

My best friend

Aznar, of course, also got the Bush Buddy treatment after joining the Coalition of the Willing, although it was treated with more cynicism by Spanish journalists than their Australian counterparts. (Let's face it, there are none on the planet more susceptible to this sort of flattery than Aussies.)

But the (familiar) story goes like this (cue to press briefings by PM's office): Aznar is very close to United States President George W Bush. Natural ideological soul mates, the two forged their relationship, according to media reports, in the ashes of September 11 2001.

In the face of strong domestic opposition, the Spanish leader strongly backed the US-led invasion of Iraq, and that perceived readiness to take an unpopular but correct strong stand reaped political dividends.

In May last year, within days of John Howard, Aznar visited the United States, where he was feted in Congress and named for a Congressional Gold Medal.

President Bush thanked him warmly for his support in Iraq. He described Aznar as “a good friend” and “a man of courage” whose "wise counsel" he "values".

“Under his leadership, Spain has been a strong partner in the war against terror, and has stood with the coalition to liberate the people of Iraq. He believes in freedom, freedom for all. Together, Spain and America will continue to meet the responsibilities of free nations for the peace and security of the world.” 

So close is their friendship that Aznar was afforded the rare privilege of an overnight stay in the presidential ranch in Texas.

And so on.

Until last Wednesday, Aznar's centre-right government looked certain to win the weekend's election.

What seems to have really irked Spanish voters was the government's continued insistence that the bombs were ETA's, which always looked unlikely. Presumably it was decided that that line could be held for the few remaining days til polling day, after which it didn't matter.

That, of course, is just the sort of thing our own Man of Steel would do. There must be a lesson there about playing politics with national security.

March 15 I still believe in lemmings This is a lemmings reminder. It takes more than two good polls to send me scurrying, and so, invitations from several readers notwithstanding, I won't be retracting my earlier predictions on just where the Latham "juggernaut" is headed ... yet. The lemmingest of them all may well be Michelle O'Byrne in Bass. She's a goner.

March 11

"What about me?" was Gary Morgan's lament yesterday. He follows up today with another 55.5 to 44.5.

March 10 Victorian safe Labor seats

This reader's email fleshes out this re Labor's vote-wasting efforts in the Sydney and Melbourne heartland:

"You're right that Labor holds every Western Melbourne seat, and by huge wasteful margins. In fact the recent redistribution made this worse, replacing a nicely margined seat (Burke) with another one stacked with wasteful votes (Gorton), by making it exclusively western Melbourne, rather than a mix of Western Melbourne and rural areas.

"However, there are so few western Melbourne electorates that this in itself is not so signficant. To make it more comparable with Sydney the thing to do is to look at Northern and Western Melbourne electorates of which, on the new boundaries, there are 10. All held by Labor. Of these eight are by ridiculously wasteful margins - worse than most in Sydney. The two exceptions are Jaga Jaga and Melbourne, which has a huge margin against the Liberals, but is potentially vulnerable to the Greens, having the highest Green vote in the country.

"As you point out there is a significant danger that Labor will win a big swing north of the Yarra, making these seats even more of a joke, while failing to make much ground rurally, or south of the river, where seats like Chisholm, Deakin, Aston, Dunkley and La Trobe lie."

March 9

Newspoll says 55 to 45, which is approaching Beazley-esque. Latham actually out-performs Beazley (and everyone else in history) on opposition leader approval rating, but not on preferred PM - although he does well on that measure. That approval rating is least useful (What does it mean? That you're doing such a smashing job as opposition leader you deserve to remain there?); voting intention is the most.

But Labor's new Tyro has been an almost total no-show in the news and front pages for the last two weeks. One week in PNG, the next here but keeping his head down. Is that the secret to success? Crean also did best when he had nothing to say.

Two party preferred margins

The musings below (March 6) led to thinking about margins - as it does. 

We know that winning the two party preferred vote doesn't guarantee victory. We also know that the pendulum is a useful tool for going into an election, but it's not perfect. For example, the pendulum going into the last federal election indicated that a two percent swing to the government would see its seat majority increase by 14. Howard got that swing, but it only translated into seat majority increase of about two.

But in a way the pendulum is more useful in hindsight, in describing how close the last election was. It was noted below that in 1987 the ALP won 50.8% of the vote which translated into a 24 seat majority, and that in uniform terms a meagre 47.4 percent two party preferred would have been enough for them (and delivered a one seat majority).

Look at this this way: after any election you could take those results and say that in three years time such and such a uniform swing will result in a change of government. (It's what, after allowing for redistributions, pundits do now. They use the results from the last election.) But of course in that three years the government may have alienated certain sections of the community, impressed others, and be on the nose in particular states and so on, so limiting the pendulum's usefulness. However, if you use the pendulum to analyse the previous result, it has more applicability, because the uniform swing assumption is more realistic.

So here is a table with federal results from 1983 to 2001. It shows the actual two party preferred result and the result that would have been needed for a different election outcome (assuming a uniform swing).

* Assuming uniform swing. So for example in 1983, had the Fraser government received 49.0% (2.2% more than it did) or more it would have won; in 2001 Kim Beazley would have needed 50.7% (which was 1.7% more than he got).

The closest election over the last two decades was, from the table, in 1993, and the safest win was 1996, followed by 1987. (Both the latter involved opposition leader John Howard)

Labor started the '80s needing 51 percent of the vote to win, but this changed quickly and by the election in '84 49.6 percent would have done it. The 1987 figure of 47.4 was its lowest, probably in history, while 1998's 51.9 was possibly its highest.

Note that at the last election in 2001, 50.7 percent would have given Labor victory. That's the figure pundits use today for the upcoming poll. This also means that had the ALP held off the pro-government swing to 0.4 percent (Labor's vote going from 51.1 to 50.7) or less, it would probably have won. That's not as strange as it sounds: Labor was coming from the 1998 position record vote majorities in western Sydney seats, and those seats looked to swing strongly to Howard in 2001, but not enough to actually deliver seats to the Coalition.

Keating 1993 swing was also "battler" heavy, which was why it also delivered few extra seats (and took Labor back to its 51 percent requirement for victory).

(Subsequently posted here)

March 6

Votes and seats

Shaun Carney in The Age mentions (at bottom) Labor's tendency to win the vote but not the election, the starkest example of which was in 1998 (see this table). They achieve this by securing massive majorities in safe seats in the western suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne.

The ALP's best bang for the vote buck (since WWII) was in 1987, when 50.8 percent of the vote (note: less than Beazley's in 1998) translated into a 24 seat majority and a whopping safety margin of 3.4 percent. (That is, in uniform terms, the John Howard led Coalition would have needed another 3.4 percent - so getting 52.6 percent two party preferred - to win the election.)

The Hawke government managed this by pursuing policies that annoyed the heartland no end but impressed marginal seats - specifically, those outside the city. The western suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney swung most savagely - the detested Treasurer Paul Keating's electorate of Blaxland went by 7.4 percent - but most regionals went the other way. Those classics of the genre Eden-Monaro (NSW), Herbert (Qld) and Bendigo (Vic) shifted to the government by 2.5, 3.2 and 1.4 percent respectively.

(The outer suburbans like Lindsay and Hughes also swung to the Liberals).

Today the ALP holds all but three western Sydney seats (out of about 15) and every western Melbourne one. (I may be wrong about the latter, being not overly familiar, but can't see any Liberal-held ones. Go to this AEC map and click on NSW and Victoria in turn and work your way inwards.)

Now, given that we were forever hearing that these heartland seats couldn't stand Simon Crean, but they love Mark Latham because the lad is one of them, it stands to reason that Crean would have wasted fewer votes in the vote-gobbling seats than Latham will. 

And a waste they will be. Look at it this way. The Labor Party needs eleven more seats to form government (not the eight that John Howard likes to quote). A five percent swing to the ALP in the Sydney and Melbourne's west (but none elsewhere) would deliver just one extra seat (Parramatta), and would increase Labor's national vote by about one percent, so putting the parties on 50-50.  But a five percent swing to Labor in the regions of NSW alone would see six seats change hands, and also translate to a national vote of approximately 50-50. 

So for any given aggregate national vote, Crean probably would have distributed the electoral capital more efficiently than Latham will.

And the possibility of Labor once again winning the votes but not the seats is far greater under a Latham leadership than a Crean one. 

March 5

A few points about this story in the Oz on  internal Liberal polling that shows the government vulnerable in "key seats", and "hard data of a regional backlash"

• Most of it is old stuff from South Australia, about Gallus's retirement, Adelaide being lineball and Wakefield now notionally Labor. Gippsland in Victoria redistributed to marginal.

• The polling was done "over the past six months", ie about half of it under Simon Crean era of ALP leadership. In fact, such is the nature of these leaked stories - vague - that it may well have been mostly under Crean. If he was still leader today, you can bet the story wouldn't have gone on the front page, with that spin. In fact, it probably wouldn't have been leaked at all.

• In general, most of these background polling stories are best taken with a grain of salt - or not taken at all. Crean copped alot of this dodgy stuff; now Howard looks set to.

• Says Samantha Maiden, "According to a recent electoral pendulum prepared by the parliamentary library and updated with the results of recent electoral redistributions in Victoria, Queensland and South Australia, the Coalition holds 11 seats with a margin of less than 2 per cent." 

Correct! (1.7 to be exact.) See pendulum gallery.
. 

March 4

End of lemming gallery?

A couple of readers have suggested I take down the lemming gallery, that my predictions that Latham would be a dud leader has been proven wrong.

My reaction: the election year is still young. Let's see how he goes. Eventually the press gallery will tire of ... doing to him what he reckons John Howard does to George Bush.

He hasn't so far had to answer a tricky question from anyone.

The lemming gallery stays!

March 3 Nielsen poll

ACNielsen is Australia's best pollster. They were closest to the actual result at the last election, and they give preferences the respect they deserve. They have Labor ahead 54 to 46.

March 1

High profile blow-ins

If you believe the rumours, both Malcolm Turnbull and Brendan Nelson offered their services to the ALP before taking the Liberal coin. This probably makes federal Labor parliamentarians feel smug and superior, but surely it's their loss. There's plenty of deadwood on them there backbenches.

Two other talented blow-ins, Cheryl Kernot and David Hill, did get preselection but in crap seats.

The Libs know that you put your star recruits (like Turnbull) into safe seats and give the marginals to hardworking local Danna Vale/Jackie Kelly types. 

Feb 29

Turnbull won in Wentworth

Ten years and one month ago, John Kerin retired from the NSW seat of Werriwa and his 32 year old replacement was elected in a byelection.

Byelection drought

Australia had no less than six byelections in 1994. Today, apart from Cunningham in 2002 which the government didn't contest, there hasn't been one since 2001. Wouldn't a byelection be nice? Right now, it would make for interesting viewing. 

Feb 28 "Howard Making Little Progress Among The Electorate"

Michael Howard, that is, according to Britain's Mori poll. 

Feb 27

In Garymorganland, the federal ALP leads 55.5 to 44.5

Wentworth

The Wentworth soap opera will hopefully conclude tomorrow - in a big finale with a death, a conquering hero, a blockbuster wedding and heaps of nice clothes.

It's been great fodder for the media, with Malcolm Turnbull - the man you either hate or ... don't really like much - trying to unseat Peter King, who has "plodder" tattooed all over his face.

That Howard is backing King is understandable. And Abbott and Costello probably reckon the next generation leadership field is big enough already, thankyou very much. But why are people like Robert Hill lining up behind the incumbent?

The electorate too lends itself to caricature: millionaires, boats, pearls, Eastern suburbs money etc etc. But of course it's more diverse than that, stretching south to Randwick. See PDF map in new window.

It's geographically the smallest electorate in the country. With a margin of 7.9 percent, it's hardly the bluest of Liberal seats. It voted 60% 'yes' to the republic in 1999, swung to the Coalition by 2.1 percent (compared with 3.4% for NSW as a whole) at the last election. According to 2001 Census, has third highest median income in the country.

See more at the Wentworth page and check out its various rankings at Pendulum gallery.

Feb 24 Dude, where's my Newspoll two party preferred lead?

Bloody voters, don't they know they're supposed to be on honeymoon? Latham is back to Crean's final Newspoll result of 50 50.

Fighting the incumbent on his own ground was always a novel strategy, and one that's never succeeded in Australian federal politics; it bestows legitimacy on the status quo.

(Did Howard succeed in 1995-6 by pretending to be Keating?)

Feb 21

Classic Kelly

Paul Kelly at his portentous best in the Oz this weekend on the Federal Opposition Leader. 

Last year, Kelly would remind us that John Howard was the wiliest politician to ever walk the earth, one who was remaking the electoral landscape, flaying opponents at will, loved in every suburban lounge room in the land, etc etc.

It now turns out that Mark Latham is even better, stronger and smarter - a "sophisticated rhetorician" with his finger on the pulse of real Australians. Howard may well have met his match.

A Clash of the Colossi! What are the chances of Australia being treated to not one, but two men of such exceptional talent - at the same time? This is indeed a lucky country.

Unca Alan

Alan Ramsey in the Sydney Morning Herald, on the other hand, has been pushing The Lad for the top job ever since Crean replaced Beazley in November 2001. He comes over like a beaming father. But one must concede that, while it's still early days, Ramsey has so far been proven right.

In his sidebar today (the bottom third of this), grumpy old Alan proudly recites Latham batting Alan Jones's questions. They're discussing parliamentary remuneration, and Latham at one point says: "Alan, in an electorate like mine, [where] a medium income would be less than $50,000 ... "

Well, this is a job for the mumble pendulum! If you click here, then in the right hand panel click "median income", you'll find 150 federal seats ranked by median household income according to the 2001 census. Werriwa sits at 45 with $1031 per week (a bit more than $50k per annum). Click on the seat to get that and other data.

Newspoll

It is good that Newspoll is now asking for preferences. It's not good that they're only going to second ones. But at least they treat those preference with more respect that another pollster. Yes, it's almost rave about preference time again. (Next week.)

Feb 17 Malcolm in the Land Of The Free ... updated

Malcolm Mackerras has kindly sent me his US Presidential pendulum [208kb PDF in new window], and I've forked out dosh (grumble grumble) to Newstext for his Oz article, which I've put here.

Feb 16 US Presidential Race

Malcolm Mackerras gives the US Presidential election his pendulum treatment in The Australian (no link). That voting system could be described as First Past the Post using 50 single member electorates of varying sizes - with the proviso each electorate's voting power is proportional to its population.

Because the pendulum is really only applicable to some form of preferential system, to make it work Malcolm ignores the Ralph Nadar and Pat Buchanan votes in 2000, which is kind of ok because their support was not that large.

Naturally, there's a "prediction": that John Kerry will win 327 electoral college votes to Dubya's 211. That is, Kerry will win in November. Malcolm sees Kerry winning all the states that Gore won in 2000, plus Florida, New Hampshire, Missouri, Ohio and Nevada - the next five on the pendulum.

Apart from anything else, Malcolm's pendulum is useful for checking out the varying strength of state support for both sides. Utah was Bush's strongest in 2000, while DC (not a state) was Gore's strongest. (Rhode Island was Gore's strongest state.) No link, alas, but will try to find one. (There is now - here.)

Back home - for context: Newspoll in 2001

Simon Crean's final Newspoll two party preferred support in November last year was 50%. Mark Latham has had four: 49, 49, 50 and 53 percent.

This being an election year, let's look at the last one - 2001. The January poll was 50 50, but in February Beazley was on 55 percent. The ALP more or less stayed ahead until the arrival of Tampa in late August, although by May the government was already making ground (thanks to Howard flip flops, see below). (My notional two party calculations.) 

This is the graph from January 2001 until the final pre-election survey in early November. The blue line rises above the red one after Tampa. (That final Newspoll gave the government a two party preferred lead of  6 percent. On election day it was only two percent.)

See also two decades of Newspolls

Feb 15

The end of Howard? (a foray into commentary)

Speaking of 2001, that was when we were last treated to a series of Howard flip flops.

In a kind of ritual of atonement for having taken the electorate for granted for so long - not least on the dreaded GST - he retreated on petrol excise and beer tax, splurged like there was no tomorrow and generally begged forgiveness.

It was embarrassing to watch but it worked, and he emerged victorious in the election late in the year; nay, acclaimed, in a twist that verges on Pythonesque, as "a conviction politician".

Now, I never tire of pointing out (see, for example, this and  this) that Howard's electoral record has been deeply ordinary. While Australian federal governments, with rare exceptions, have enjoyed at least three terms, and most have effortlessly cruised into their second (and often third) ones, this one's electoral stocks were so pitiful it looked dead half way into term one.

Howard then made both re-elections appear so difficult that when he did survive (by two modest margins), pundits marvelled at the master politician, this man with a magnificent empathy with middle Australia.

(Meanwhile, such is the world economic climate that, governments in comparable natons are being returned without raising a sweat - see New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom.)

But where Howard certainly has excelled is in convincing his party room that only he could have done it, that without him they'd be lost. That's why he's the third longest serving PM in history. 

Now, if you believe what the papers have been saying over the last couple of days, the scales, slowly, might be falling from the Coalition party room's eyes. Howard was never that popular out in punterland; in the partyroom he has been God, but that might be changing. 

Costello versus Latham?

(End of commentary foray.)

Feb 13

Good Lord, it's 2001 all over again (according to that nice Mr Morgan): 56.5 versus 43.5. 

Feb 12 

The penny has dropped that the pendulum gallery is too big for many computers' browser settings. So I have made a small browser version, which readers can switch to at any time. Have a look.

Feb 11 Sugar seats

With the FTA, everybody's looking at the "sugar seats". The last time we heard so much about this lot was (as far as I can recall) in the lead up to the 1993 election, when Paul Keating was going to save the canegrowers from John Hewson's feral tariff cuts (from memory).

There is generally thought to be "about eight" of them, all Government-held (apart from Kennedy - Katter-country). The nine I can identify are Dawson, Fairfax, Herbert, Hinkler, Kennedy, Leichhardt and Wide Bay in Queensland, and Page and Richmond in New South Wales. Dawson, home of De-Anne Kelly, gets the most mentions. Presumably there are one or two others. 

In 1993, Labor went in to the election holding Page and Richmond, and retained them both. The former swung slightly to the Nationals, the latter to Labor by 1.2 percent. The NSW aggregate swing was 2.3 percent to the ALP.

In Queensland , the Keating government went in holding Herbert, Hinkler, Kennedy and Leichhardt and emerged with just two - Herbert and Leichhardt. Dawson and Wide Bay remained in National hands. All electorates moved towards the Coalition by more than the state aggregate, which was 1.8 percent (to the Coalition).

Conclusion? They're probably not, politically speaking, worth the trouble. More generally, pork-barrelling is over-rated. 

Feb 10

Latham (the "tyro") finally gets his Newspoll bounce (53 to 47). And Newspoll begins the year by finally asking for preferences - hoorah. 

Previously they only asked for them during election campaigns, and at other times, until early last year, the Oz only reported primary support. This time last year they started notionally distributing minor party and Independent votes as they flowed en masse at the 2001 election (that is, giving 58% of them  to Labor and 42% to the Coalition). Some time during the year they began distributing them as per the individual party flows at the last election (so about 75% of Green votes go to Labor, about 45% of One Nation's go to Labor, etc.)

The ALP certainly got a big preference flow in last weekend's Newspoll. Bigger than those notional allocations would have given them. 

Poor Mr Crean. Remember this table? (Click to open in new window then toggle). The Newspoll taken 30 August - 1 Sept 2002 had all parties' primary support identical to today's except for one more Democrat and one less Green percent support. This was in the days before the pollster bothered even calculating a notional two party preferred, so poor old Simon didn't even get the 'election winning position' tag.

Another thing ... For some reason, over the last month The Australian, including in yesterday's editorial, has insisted (with few exceptions) on describing Beattie's pre Saturday majority as 22, instead of 43 (Labor had 66 seats, everyone else 23). They were presumably thinking of the required number of seats to fall for his majority to be wiped out.

(If you have 14 oranges and I have six, you have eight more than me; if you give me four we'll have the same amount.)

Will the Oz henceforth describe John Howard's majority as 8 (the number for "electoral oblivion" he likes to quote) or eleven (the more realistic number required for a change of government)? Or will they, like everyone else, be describing it as 16 to 20?

Feb 9

If you see a straw, clutch it.  Oh, and don't forget larrikinism.

Feb 3 2004

from smh

Feb 2

Feb 1

Here's AFR column on Queensland election