Oz Politics Blog

Last weekend’s ACNielsen’s monthly poll of 1409 voters was published in this morning’s Fairfax press (here and here).

In two-party preferred terms Labor was two points ahead on 51 to 49 per cent. The previous ACNielsen poll had it at 52 to 48 in Labor’s favour.

Labor’s primary vote was 39 per cent and the Coalition received 43 per cent (both level with the previous poll). The Greens were steady on 10 per cent, the Democrats on 2 per cent, and Family First on 1 per cent.

Howard’s performance rating was steady on 53 per cent. Beazley’s dropped six points to 49 per cent.

Howard maintained a lead of 52 per cent to 38 per cent as preferred prime minister.

ACNielsen also had a look at the Costello option. According to the Age,

The comparison between Mr Costello and Mr Beazley as preferred PM confirms that Mr Costello has a problem with support from the young. He leads Mr Beazley 46-43 per cent among those over 55, but trails 36 to 52 per cent among the youngest voters.

Mr Howard leads Mr Beazley among these same voters by 48-44 per cent.

Fewer voters say they would be more likely to vote Coalition under Mr Costello than a year ago (20 per cent compared with 24 per cent in May 2004).

But there are also fewer saying they would be less likely to vote Coalition (37 per cent to 41 per cent).

According to the SMH, “63 per cent said they expected the Prime Minister to see out the term - a 19 percentage point rise compared with when voters were asked a similar question last September, just before the federal election.”

Why is ACNielsen to the left of Morgan and Newspoll?

If you look at the polling graphs since the 2004 election over recent months, typically ACNielsen has reported a poorer two-party preferred outcome for the Coalition than the other polling organisations.

In large measure this reflects ACNielsen’s approach to attributing preferences on the basis of their polling information. Newspoll and Morgan have been attributing preferences on the basis of the distribution at the last election. In recent elections, non-Coalition-non-Labor voters have been more inclined to preference the Coalition than the opinion polls have reported. (See my earlier discussion on this phenomenon here and here).

By way of example, in the following table I have adjusted ACNielsen’s two-party preferred poll results over recent months to reflect a 38.6 per cent flow to the Coalition of non-Coalition-non-Labor preferences, as was exhibited at the last election.

The adjusted two-pqrty preferred result is 50 per cent each for the Coalition and Labor, and unchanged from the previous ACNeilsen poll in early April.

With the exception of the January result (against the backdrop of the Latham implosion), the adjusted two-party preferred results are much more consistent with the other polls. (Just as ACNielsen’s primary vote results for the Coalition and Labor are consistent).

The latest Newspoll has been reported here.

Of the three polling organisations I have been tracking, Newspoll has been the kindest to the Coalition. It has only had the Coalition in negative territory once since the 2004 election (on the weekend of 1-3 April 2005).

The two-party preferred result for last weekend (52 to 48) represents a one point movement in the Coalition’s favour. The Coalition’s primary vote is also up one point to 46 per cent. And Labor’s primary vote is down one point to 38 per cent. This is pretty close to the outcome at the last election (52.8, 46.7 and 37.6 per cent respectively).

In terms of satisfaction with their job performance as Prime Minister and Opposition Leader, Howard is on 51 per cent (up two) and Beazley is on 47 per cent (down five). Beazley is back below Howard on the graph.

The better Prime Minister result is unchanged from the past two fortnights, with Howard on 51 per cent and Beazley on 31 per cent.

The updated graphs can be seen here. When you get there, you may need to hit the refresh button on your browser to see the latest charts.

Its an old story. I have touched on it three times this year (here, here, and here). Nonetheless, the latest round of nuanced statements and divinations has been largely ignored by the blogosphere as it gobbled column inches in the mainstream media. While I suspect the blogosphere is bored (I know I am), it is time to look at it again.

The latest round was sparked by John Howard’s interview with Steve Lewis (The Australian) and Malcolm Farr (Daily Telegraph) on Thursday last week on the fourth floor of the Grand Bretagne Hotel in Athens. Putting aside the hubris, the sentiment of Howard’s concluding comments were not that surprising. He planned to stay on as Prime Minister for this Parliamentary term to defeat Kim Beazley at the next election.

What was new was the form of words. Up until Athens, the formula had been, “I will stay leader of the Liberal party for so long as it wants me to and it’s in the party’s best interests.” The ambiguity at the heart of the old formula served well, especially in the lead up to the 2004 election. It gave Costello hope for an orderly transition in the short to medium term, and it did not lock Howard into an early retirement date.

Why did Howard change the formula. A number of journalists have opted for a cock-up theory over a conspiracy theory. For example, Matt Price described things this way …

Blabbing in Athens about sticking around and walloping Kim Beazley in 2007 is probably a rolled-gold, 24-carat, unplanned, unadulterated, accidental, abject, polyunsaturated stuff-up.

I disagree. I think the new text was Howard at his most strategic. The old words were for the 2004 election. He needed a new mantra for 2007. His agenda was to wind back Costello’s expectations now, early in the term, so that they do not boil over between and 12 and 18 months out from the 2007 election. Call it grasping the nettle. A moderate amount of pain and bruised ego today, is much better than a full-on leadership tussle 12 months out from an election.

Glenn Milne got it right when he said, ‘the Prime Minister tried to drive a stake through Peter Costello’s leadership ambitions’. Where I doubt Milne is here,

Howard still has the power of incumbency. But his ill-discipline and self-indulgence in Athens has already ceded Costello the moral ascendancy and the political momentum. It has allowed Costello to paint himself as the hard-working Treasurer, whose toil on the budget has been betrayed by a self-absorbed Prime Minister.

Previously I noted that Milne was spruiking for Costello, and I suspect this is just more of the spiel. But what the appeal to moral authority betrays is a lack of numbers. My best guess is that Howard’s support in the Liberal Party room is largely unchanged (even with Alby Shultz’s defection). Howard would win a leadership battle, and Costello would be consigned to the backbench.

In side-show alley, we have Labor’s Wayne Swan tossing the odd incendiary device, with accusations that Treasurer Peter Costello lacks the necessary ‘ticker’ and ‘bottle’ to challenge Prime Minister John Howard. It is an amusing and conflated reference to Howard’s previous critique of Beazley, and Keating’s challenge of then Prime Minister Hawke.

And therein is the rub.

As Prime Minister, Hawke was the Chairman of the Board. A good chairman, but he needed a good board. Keating’s departure proved a material loss, which gave Keating the chance at a second shot in the locker. Howard’s style is presidential. While Costello has been a good treasurer, his departure from the ministry would have less impact on Howard than Keating’s did on Hawke. A Costello challenge could mean an eternity on the backbench (and not just the 6 months Keating experienced).

As things stand, Costello has to put up or shut up. Given the potential for oblivion with a leadership challenge now, my money is on ’shut up,’ at least for the short term.

It is the first day of the month, so it is time to review the betting market.

We noted during the middle of April that the Centrebet odds had moved in Beazley’s direction just a touch. They have since moved back. Both Centrebet and IASBet are now unchanged from the first of April.

Centrebet

• Coalition — $1.50 — implied win probability: 62%
• Labor — $2.40 — implied win probability: 38%

IASBet

• Coalition — $1.53 — implied win probability: 60%
• Labor — $2.30 — implied win probability: 40%

The betting market graphs can be seen here.