August 10 An untrue truism

Peter Hartcher in the SMH, in a defence of Mr Rudd's me-tooism, recites this bit of received wisdom:

"Australian voters need a powerful reason to remove a government, to vote for change."

If that were true John Howard would not be about to lose, but he is. And he is about to lose because - put crudely, and all else being equal - over a government's term, each re-election becomes more difficult for the incumbent and easier for the opposition. 

At the first couple of outings the Hartcher condition holds, but eventually it is turned over and people need a powerful reason not to toss the miserable bunch out. John Hewson and Mark Latham fit the "powerful reason" bill; Rudd doesn't.

Similarly, there was nothing that could be described as a "powerful reason" to change government in 1996, when the economy was finally doing well. Paul Keating was similarly infuriated by John Howard's insistence he was at one with the PM on matters generally economic.

Perceptions versus results

Mr Shanahan in the Oz believes that the growing perception that Rudd will win is good for Labor and bad for the Coalition. 

I reckon the exact opposite. Again going back to the previous change of government, the sneaking suspicion that Keating might once more wriggle off the hook helped consolidate Howard's win. Three years earlier the expectation of a Hewson victory helped Keating.

And if people totally write Howard off this year it will be bad for Rudd, because they might be tempted to moderate the inevitable victory.

August 9 pm Horse, previously believed deceased, shows signs of life 

An unofficial ceasefire is currently in force in the Newspoll Wars, but Crikey today reported this, which I reproduce without comment. [Update: it now includes Martin's response to Crikey the following day.].

Except to reluctantly refer you of course back to this and subsequent developments.  [Update: also here.]

End of post.

August 9 A book launch The Crikey Guide to the 2007 Federal Election was launched last night at the Paperchain Bookstore in Manuka, Canberra. A fine crowd attended. Editor Christian Kerr's writing-hand got plenty of use. Click picture for larger version.

Mega-tabulation II

George Megalogenis has posted the second instalment of his (and the Oz's) exclusive 2006 Census electorate data. You need to read the conditions of use at bottom of his piece.

The PM's hopeless re-election strategy

Has the PM gone bonkers? In a political sense, the answer must be yes. In picking fights with the state governments, the idea, as we know, is to show voters that only he, and not a Labor PM, can put these bastards in their place and, yes, that a Rudd government would be as horrible as the state ones.

Return of Man of Steel

But more generally, it's probably about generating an atmosphere of crisis, emotion and insecurity, in which only one strong man is holding his head. So, stretching into the campaign, and especially in the final week, we might see all sorts of outrageous envelopes pushed. 

It won't work. Some of the state premiers are superior communicators to Howard; they're nearly all more popular. In the end it might win him a few votes, but will probably push away others - otherwise Liberal voters - who reckon this is no way to run a country.

August 8 More western Sydney carry-on

That leaked Liberal polling contained, apparently, some analysis about "battlers" and "aspirationals" etc shifting from Howard to Rudd. This, according to reports, would have drastic consequences in the Howard's battlers heartland of western Sydney!

There are, depending on how you define the area, perhaps 15 or 16 seats in south-western Sydney. All but three or four are held by Labor, and of that three or four, only one is really winnable for Labor this year. That's Lindsay, around Penrith.

Train trips to ugh-boot territory

Until the 2004 election, Parramatta was everyone's favourite "Howard battlers'" seat, presumably because they'd actually heard of the westie suburb of the same name that the electorate includes. 

Despite the fact that Parramatta has, since federation, been usually held by the Liberals/non-Labor, from 1996 to 2004 journalists would, a couple of times a year, traipse out west and point mics at the Howard-loving hoi polloi. They were actually accosting people in the suburb of Parramatta, which was still voting Labor, but never mind, the journos got their soundbites.

Now Parramatta is Labor-held, interviewers must take the longer train ride to Penrith, in Lindsay. A two party preferred majority of Penrith people, according to the 2004 polling booth results, did vote Liberal last time, so they're on safer ground there.

But it's still only one seat.

August 7 Newspoll says 56 to 44

In the Oz, tables here.

Big fat election site

See Adam Carr's comprehensive site.

Cause and effect: 1990 time capsule

Many years ago, in the leadup to the 1990 federal election, pollster Gary Morgan reported that Victorian voters didn't like the Hawke government's proposal for a Multi Function Polis. Opinion poll voting intentions for federal Labor were terrible in that state - and on election day they copped a frightful swing there - and so to some commentators the equation was obvious: unpopular policy led to voter turnoff.

But it was more likely that Victorians were about to punish the federal Labor party for the sins of a very unpopular governing state one, and this being a little nonsensical to articulate (and perhaps even consciously acknowledge), when answering pollsters' questions they latched onto the nearest issue around. So the cause and effect went the other way.

Old, tricky and out of touch

As you know, qualitative polling by Mark Textor (who is a deadset legend) reveals that the PM is going to lose because he's seen as old, passed it, dishonest etc. But it's equally likely people see the PM this way, or at least verbalise it, because they are going to vote Labor. If he wasn't old and tricky they'd find something else to complain about. 

Similarly, while Kevin Rudd is no doubt a very smart, disciplined operator, the glowing persona being bestowed on him is difficult to rationally justify in any innate sense.

To paraphrase the Health Minister, shit like this happens after 11 and a half years.

August 6 Plug: Crikey book launch on Wednesday

The Crikey Guide to the 2007 Federal Election is a great read, perfect to keep in your case for that train/bus/tram/plane ride to work/study/play etc. My chapter is a kind of "things you need to know about the polls"; other ones cover all sorts of juicy topics.

The Canberra launch is at 6pm on Wednesday 8 August at the Paperchain Bookstore in Manuka. All welcome, should be fun.

Another Plug: MEAA presents Vic Fingerhut 

Don't do much plugging, but this does look interesting. The wonderfully named Mr Fingerhut is a US political strategist who is speaking in Sydney next Monday.

It's free, more info here.

August 5 Scenes from a [different] book launch

You might have heard of the John Howard bio, a book that kind of launched itself a couple of weeks ago with help from the Federal Treasurer and Fairfax. 

On Thursday at the ANU one of the two authors was feted at a "launch". Click either piccie below for a larger version.

August 4 Mr Ramsey's half-missing column

[Update: this post turned out to be about nothing (other than Alan's possible filing tardiness) and can be safely skipped.] This is curious. Alan Ramsey's main column isn't in the hardcopy of today's SMH (although his sidebar is), and appears to be replaced by one of those quickie fillers from overseas.

However, Alan's column does appear online (as does the  filler). Did the paper pull it for some reason, possibly legal, but not get the message through to the online crowd?

Nothing particularly racy there, although some business names mentioned near the end.  

[Update: it's apparently there in the Sydney edition, which is printed later. Probably just an uninteresting stuffup. This post will self-destruct in 24 hours.]

On wimpy predictions

A  few folk are now suggesting, or implying, or hinting, that the election this year will be "close", "tight" or "tough". What this means in seat terms is never stated. (Probably John Howard found even 1996 "tough" in a way.)

Some are simply putting their trust in the PM's political prowess. More substantially, Bryan Palmer, Michael Costello and others see evidence in a narrowing of the opinion poll gap over the last several months.

Predictions of "it'll be close" are safe to make, especially if you don't put a seat number on it, because you can never be too far wrong. 

But just as this time three years ago my constant refrain was that "Boofhead" was going down, today I have little doubt that Howard is finished. 

And it won't be "close".

Pros and cons

The two things Howard has in his favour are the economy and the state Labor governments. Indeed, given both of these it's a surprise his previous wins weren't more impressive.

Against him is eleven and a half years in power, a competent-looking opposition and his own electoral mediocrity. (For evidence of the last-named, see second line in par above; see this.)

Preliminary prediction of a 20 seat majority

At this point a conservative expectation might be Labor winning, say, 85 seats, which would mean a majority of 20. But the majority could be double that, or half that.

Oz blogging

In other matters, Brad Norington in the Oz on Australian bloggers. I get a mention.

August 3 Bits 'n pieces

• Megalo-genius: read George on census housing data by electorate. After you've read the conditions of use at bottom of that piece, the data is here. (Note the url.)

• Belated addition of feral abacus Possums Politics in right hand bar.

• Michael Costello wins this week's "Hyperbole Overload from Someone Who is Usually Sensible" Award for today's piece in the Oz re the PM being "back on his game". [Update: I suppose some of his defences of Beazley used to veer this way.]

• Morgan says 55 to 45. (Note that Morgan, alone among the pollsters, gives numbers for Family First and One Nation. This is good.)

• Me in Crikey today.

August 1 Mackerras NSW pendulum

Earlier this week I referred to Malcolm Mackerras's analysis of NSW post-election in The Australian.

Malcolm has kindly sent me the accompanying pendulum (at my request). Very nice to look at; here it is in PDF, here in webpage. (Attribution to Oz graphic artists.)

On getting tough with the states

Upon taking the leadership last year, one of Kevin Rudd's first utterances was to advocate reform of state-federal relations. It was a good idea politically, making virtue of an Achilles heel: wall to wall state Labor governments.

Howard, on the other hand, has been following the advice of US political strategist Dick Morris and others that governments need to pick fights on the way to elections. In this case with state premiers.

Picking on someone your own size

The trouble with this strategy is that, on the available evidence, the state Premiers are more popular than John Howard, and generally always have been. Five of the states (WA the exception) and both the territories have in the last decade won landslides the PM could only dream of.

Certainly every Premier/Chief Minister today (include Bracks in Victoria, and can't find data for Tasmania and NT) is more popular on any opinion poll measure - voting intentions, approval etc - than Howard. 

Given this, you have to wonder whose side the voters will take in a conflict. Possibly the best Howard can hope for is to deplete the capital of both himself and his state counterparts. Which leaves Rudd unscathed. 

The PM does best when getting tough with folks who are not popular in the first place. That's his forte.

July 31 Gerard Henderson in the SMH It's difficult to disagree with most of Gerard Henderson's SMH column today, especially his assessments near the end about likely preference flows.

But the first bit, referring to Galaxy's David Briggs in the Herald Sun, is a little stretchy. In that piece, Briggs noted that opinion polls in recent election years have, leading to the election, overstated Labor's lead by about two points. Gerard uses this to adjust Labor's numbers downwards to say Labor is at between 52 and 56 right now.

But that's not quite what Briggs said. If I understand correctly, he was anticipating movement to the Coalition between now and the election and saying as things stand Labor's vote will come in at around 54 percent on election day. That's different to simply knocking two points off today's numbers. If 55 percent of Australians are saying they'll vote Labor, then that's what they're saying.

Briggs obviously suspects the Coalition will stage a further comeback, reckoning that "if Labor support drops to 52-53 per cent it will suit the Prime Minister very nicely". But that, again, depends on the timing. If that's what the polls published on election day say, it's curtains for Howard.

 [Briggsie also reckons "The best two-party preferred figure Labor achieved was 53.2 per cent in the 1983 election". Actually, Labor got substantially more than that in 1943 -  estimated by Adam Carr (relevant page is currently down) to be over 60. A little more on that here.]

July 30 2007 Galaxy says 54 to 46

Here in Courier Mail, and in the other News tabloids. Tables etc here.

More on Victoria

The past

We'll never know how John Brumby would have gone at the 1999 election, but it's hard to imagine him pulling off the Bracks fluke. 

That result was a surprise in two ways. First, no-one expected the ALP to get anything like 50% of the two party preferred vote; they received (I think) 50.2%. And even if anyone had anticipated it, the on-paper number needed to take government was about 52%; that bare majority proved enough because of unexpected gains outside the capital.

(The APH library did a great analysis of it.)

In this way Victoria joined the other mainland states in electing Labor governments by a whisker and/or lots of luck, and following it up with a thumping win. (WA the exception to the "thumping win" bit.)

The future

The next Victorian election will be in late 2010, when the government will be in the same position as its NSW counterpart in March this year: going for a fourth term, but with a newish Premier. NSW Labor was 12 years old, Victorian Labor will be 11.

But Iemma in March came from a position of greater strength - Carr's 2003 vote of 56.2, a 3.9% swing from which gave him 52.3 (according to Malcolm Mackerras in the Oz). Brumby's starting point will be the approximately 54.5 from last November, and a four percent swing on that might make it rather lineball. Even a repeat of the three and a half percent swing Bracks suffered last year would make it at least competitive.

In any event, I reckon once Labor wins federally (as they'll very probably do this year) those state governments will start falling.

See also this table.

• Speaking of Malcolm, he has some (strongly worded) advice for the PM and his party in the Canberra Times.

July 29 On Rudd's "me-tooism"

Paul Kelly in The Oz (like many) makes a big deal about Rudd's so-called me-tooism, reckoning that his "rejection of the Left civil libertarian position should not be underestimated. It is both intellectual and political."

But Rudd's approach to these things is pretty much the same as his predecessors'. Neither Beazley, Latham or Crean would have bought into a national security stoush. They were all "conservative" (Crean probably the least), which largely explains why Paul was so keen on Latham in early 2004. It was only after the Lad had lost the election badly that the commentariat settled on the one-size-fits-all explanation that he was "too left wing".

So here we go again today, and if Rudd loses he'll also be declared too left-wing, Bill "PR" Shorten (Chris Pearson's favourite) will announce he is just the man to "take the party to the centre" and the story goes on.

Changing of Victorian guard Listened to the press conference on Friday. It sounded at first like an election speech, and took Bracks forever to get, through all the self-congratulation, to the point.

But finally he did.

The most interesting thing will be perceptions of John Brumby as Premier - or how they are explained. As you know, I believe the position largely maketh how the person is viewed.

Brumby was considered a poor opposition leader and a wimp, but his soon-to-be recognised take-chargedness, charisma, thoughtfulness and wit will have to be explained by something - probably that he's "changed" since the late 1990s. 

July 27 The Oz: love for sale  

Let me take this opportunity to mention that The Australian is a very good paper, certainly the best in the country and possibly the world. Furthermore, study after study has shown their reporting of Newspoll to be 100% percent agenda-free and always correct.

Oh, and here's me in the Oz on interest rates, elaborating on post here yesterday. 

(The stick didn't hurt for long and the carrot tastes yummy.)

Here's a dodgy midi file of the Cole Porter song.

Me in Crikey

And here was me in Crikey on Wednesday on the ALP, Tassie and the environment.

Electoral roll

Read Graeme Orr on the electoral roll in the Curious-Snail; makes reference to that paper.

July 26 Electorate maps

Check out William (the pollbludger) Bowe's brilliant electorate maps showing polling place data at Crikey's marginal seats analysis.

Interest rate rise effect: which way?

There are two broad opinions about the political effect of interest rate rises: that they are bad for the government; and they are good for the government.

I'm with the latter. 

It's true that every rise dents just a smidgin Howard and Costello's economic credentials, but they can still point to those late 1980s numbers under Labor. And yes, voters will be a little inclined to punish the government, but much more powerful is fear of the future.

As we know, lots of folks are geared up to buggery, and if on election day people are really worried about hitting the wall under possible interest rate rises, then the government - the safe option - will benefit. 

That's one reason why I reckon mortgage-belt areas will, relative to others, stick with Howard.

See also point 2 here.

More on better economic managers

At the bottom of this Mike Steketee piece in the Oz, Sol Lebovic is quoted as saying that "before the 1996 election, Howard beat Keating on who was the best economic manager", which appears to confound my "suspicion" re early 1996 in yesterday's post.

I went to the Newspoll site, and sure enough the question "WHICH OF (LEADER) DO YOU THINK IS MORE CAPABLE OF HANDLING AUSTRALIA'S ECONOMY?" goes back to 1993. I've cut and pasted data here.

(I'm confused, as I thought I was once told by Newspoll that they didn't this question way back then, instead asking something about the parties' economic credentials. But maybe my memory is faulty, so leaving that aside ..)

Sol's being a little selective. The table shows Alex Downer leading Paul Keating on the question, and then the positions are switched before Alex is dumped. It shows Howard leading Keating on the question at first, and then, in late 1995 and early 1996, Keating takes the lead - before losing the election big-time.

The lesson once more

As you might have read here before, all this other stuff - approval, preferred PM, drives the nicer car, better teeth, better at this-and-that - is interesting, but there is only one set of numbers worth dwelling on for than a minute when anticipating election outcomes, and that's voting intentions.

July 25 Newspoll personality ratings

In the Oz, has Howard increasing lead over Rudd on national security and economy (tables here). One caveat is that the March survey, with which last weekend's is being compared, was, as I noted in Canberra Times at the time, at the high point of Labor's Newspoll lead over the Coalition.  

These two areas are probably the most important election-determiners, but Rudd can't hope to overtake Howard on them (and I suspect the same questions in early 1996 would have shown Paul Keating ahead). 

An extra question?

Maybe some further drilling would help, attempting to quantify the difference not just in raw numbers of people, but their strength of feeling. Ie "how much more capable is Howard than Rudd of running the economy ...?"

If the difference is small, even across lots of people, then perhaps it doesn't become an issue.

July 24 (pm) On Liberal leadership trouble-making Rudd & Co seem to be falling back on the age-old "a vote for [insert leader] is a vote for [insert deputy]" slogan. It never worked against Hawke/Keating or Howard/Costello in the past, but it's there in the Learn Your Lines Mate and Stay on Message manual (Wayne Swan (ed)) so it's gotta be trotted out.

They should take a cue from their Finance spokesman on 'Insiders' on Sunday: if the Coalition wins again you don't know what leadership freak-show will eventuate; "you will have open warfare in the Government if it's re elected".

The prospect of unpredictability and stress in the absence of the steady hand of Howard is more powerful than that of the boring (and safe) Treasurer taking the reins.

July 24 Newspoll says 55 to 45

Here's Dennis; here's the graphic. ABC radio is repeating the "Costello can't save the Coalition" headline, but questions asking "how would you vote if such and such happened?" are nearly always not very useful.

And for those who find meaning in "better PM", Mr Rudd's lead increased in the last fortnight.

New book out next week The Crikey Election 2007 book hits bookstores next week. It includes a chapter by me - a kind of 'opinion polls made easy'.

July 23 Tomorrow's Newspoll

Should be interesting. If, like the recent Morgan, it shows movement towards the government, the van Errington-fuelled leadership chatter will likely subside, much as the last bout of Costello-itis was cured by a 53 to 47 Galaxy.

But if not ...?

July 22 Costello: the Billy McMahon scenario

That Jason Koutsoukis in the Age is a bombastic young man. There are many things that don't work in this admonishment of Peter Costello for not having the guts to do in his PM last year.

Most importantly, a necessary condition for leadership change is a perception that the incumbent is struggling in the electorate. That condition is satisfied now, but it wasn't then.

But let's assume Costello had managed to knock Howard off a year ago or so. He'd now be in a similar position to Howard today - trailing by a mile - and everyone would agree the change had been a big mistake. If only The Master were still there, the partyroom would say, he'd have that Rudd upstart on toast. Oh, why did we do it?

It would go down, incorrectly, as a huge blunder, and Costello as the man who led the party into the wilderness.

Things have worked out ok for Peter so far. All he has to do now is avoid being opposition leader after the election. Let Tony, Alex or Brendan take the first loss or two.

But if I were Costello I wouldn't touch it with a barge poll. 

You could rate Howard's chances of winning the election as one in four and Costello's as one in three. But moving house is one of life's little traumas, and repacking boxes after several months in the Lodge would be doubly so.

If Howard is toppled, and the Coalition loses this year, the just defeated PM will probably become Opposition leader, with next to no chance of making it to a successful election. He/she would join the Sneddon-Peacock-Beazley club rather than the Fraser-Hawke-Howard-Rudd one.

But what if they chopped down Howard and Peter wasn't interested? Who would be brave/foolish/ambitious enough to step into the breach?

I nominate the man who looks, from a certain angle, like this. You know who he is.

July 19 AEC electorate margins

The Australian Electoral Commission has released its version of seat margins adjusted for redistributions. Here.

Liberal leadership: a "Rove" moment?

When Beazley did the "Rove" thing eight months ago, you could observe a quantum shift in his leadership chances.

I don't know what van Errington put in the Treasurer's coffee last year (may have taken place around the Glenn Milne-McLachlan diary business), but the timing of the SMH excerpts (from the book) coincides with a six year low in the PM's standing in his partyroom. These things can snowball.

Ok, a change is not yet more likely than not, but it's moving in that direction.

My bets on Liberal leadership

I still have a few bucks sitting on a Liberal leadership change before the next election. A long time ago, the same dollar amount was invested in Brendan Nelson at $11, and Peter Costello at $2.80.

The Nelson gamble made sense at the time, although it's difficult now to remember why. But a change to Costello would more than recoup the total investment.

Consider this a disclosure.

July 17 Pick the doppelgangers

Several commentators have noted an alleged similarity between Kevin Rudd and John Howard. Rudd is a "younger version" of Howard, they say.  I find this unpenetrating and uninteresting.

The argument goes: short, nerdy, believes in God, conservative. So presumably Kim Beazley's size precluded the comparison.

The "Rudd is conservative!" schtick is part of the "Howard is great and has remade Australian politics" narrative. In reality all Labor opposition leaders since Hayden have been middle of the road and conservative. 

I think Rudd is better described as a younger, energetic and more disciplined Beazley. Both foreign policy establishment, pro-American, not particularly au fait with economics. Both can talk under wet cement without necessarily, in the end, having said much.

And Mark Latham, I always thought, was trying to scratch the same itch as Howard - he was a muscular, aggressive version of the same set of values. An old fashioned Australian male with a narrow view of Australian-ness fuelled by a similar set of grievances. (Latham's views on US alliance aside, obviously, but I always suspected that was rather phoney.) 

Both Howard and Latham give the impression they yearn just a little for an old uncomplicated Australia. And you can imagine Rudd or Beazley living/working overseas, but Howard or Latham? They couldn't handle all those un-Australians. (Washington a possible exception in Howard's case.)

One of Latham's problems was that he set himself up as an erratic version of the incumbent. That's different to being middle of the road and inoffensive, which is Rudd's branding - and was Beazley's.