Oz Politics Blog

Today’s Newspoll had the same headline result as yesterday’s ACNielsen poll: a predicted national two-party preferred vote of 52 per cent for Labor and 48 per cent for the Coalition.

Both the Coalition and Labor had a predicted primary vote of 42 per cent (up 2 and 1 respectively on the previous Newspoll), both results are 1 point different to ACNielsen (down 1 and up 1 respectively), and within the error margins for that poll.

Howard’s satisfaction rating rose from 43 per cent to 47 per cent and his dissatisfaction dropped from 47 per cent to 43 per cent.

Beazley’s satisfaction rating rose from rose from 32 per cent to 34 per cent and his dissatisfaction rating slipped from 50 per cent to 49 per cent, its lowest since February.

Newspoll did a three-way comparison on the preferred Prime Minister.

On the choice between Mr Howard and Mr Beazley as preferred prime minister, Mr Howard’s support rose from 49 per cent to 53 per cent and Mr Beazley’s was down from 29 per cent to 27 per cent.

On the separate comparison between Mr Howard and Mr Costello, Mr Howard’s advantage in April, of 62 per cent to 24 per cent, increased to 66 per cent to the Treasurer’s 20 per cent.

Mr Howard’s strongest support over Mr Costello was among men (68 per cent to 20 per cent), people aged over 50 (69per cent to 16 per cent) and among Coalition supporters (88 per cent to just 10 per cent).

Mr Costello’s highest support was among those aged 18-34 (28 per cent) and ALP voters (28 per cent).

The comparison between Mr Beazley and Mr Costello reversed their standing in April, which was 44per cent for Mr Costello and 37per cent for Mr Beazley, to 44per cent for Mr Beazley last weekend and 33 per cent for the Treasurer. Mr Beazley’s biggest advantages over Mr Costello were among women and younger and older voters.

Dennis Shanahan concluded from these poll results that John Howard is staying on.

The usual opinion poll graphs are here. You may need to hit the refresh or reload button on your browser to see the latest graphs.

Following ‘walletgate’, Andrew Norton at Catallaxy and Kim at the Purple Rodeo have made some interesting observations about lying in politics. Both worth reading.

According to Andrew,

This seems to be the pragmatic Australian view of politics at work. You have to take the good with the bad with politicians as with other people, and fudging things a little is no more than a misdemeanour. The Left’s John Howard Lies campaign fell flat as a result. What matters politically is not so much trust as confidence that a political leader will deliver better than his rivals on key issues. On that count, for the meantime at least, Howard is ahead.

Kim’s arguement is subtle, and difficult to distill from a short quote. She argued that politicians should be judged by results for the public good (albeit legally achieved), and that expecting truth alone is niave.

This is why fundamentally the argument that “John Howard lies” is a very weak one. In the context of Walletgate, it’s not too dissimilar to McLachlan and Costello’s misunderstanding that they had a deal frozen in stone that should be honoured come what may. John Howard is in fact right to say that such arrangements are always provisional, and that politicians don’t have a right to pass on public office through private transactions (even if his own behaviour might belie his words).

And politically, for those wanting to hold the Howard government responsible for its disservice to the public good, it doesn’t work. If Howard could win the 2004 election based on a slogan of trust, after all the accusations levelled against him, it does indicate that there is a difference in the public mind between personal honour and public performance. The Labor Party, and Howard’s other opponents, would have done better to make a strong case as to why they ought to be entrusted with government. The fact that they resorted to various forms of raising the “character” question - for instance, Costello’s arrogance, and the fact that this failed, is proof again. Contra George W. Bush, feeling comfortable having a beer with someone is not a good argument. I’ve met politicians who were honourable in their own way, and who achieved good things guided by a set of convictions, who were quite distasteful as people in many ways. But I wasn’t picking a friend or a business partner, but supporting a political leader.

Pragmatically, as well, the evidence that the moral critique of Howard doesn’t convince is that it’s easily turned around by the Right into the accusation that the Left are out of touch and more concerned with issues of process than issues of policy. It does seem to follow from the claim that Howard lies, but nevertheless is re-elected and maintains his popularity that there’s some sort of higher morality available to those sitting in judgement that transcends that of the majority of Australian citizens. It’s easy again to see how this is translated into the “Howard-hating lefty elitist”. The fact, though, is that nice considerations of truth telling and lying are just not the issues that move the electorate. To claim they should be is also to make a claim, however implicit or downplayed, of a superior moral position.

That’s why Costello’s “my parents taught me never to tell a lie” line was rightly scorned by most who heard it. In saying it, he was himself trying to manipulate opinion and achieve position. In other words, he wasn’t making a moral accusation, but playing out a political tactic. It’s just that he’s rather bad at it, and Howard’s rather good.

So it’s not a good political argument. If Kim Beazley is indeed more honourable than John Howard, is that a good enough reason to vote for him?

Update 19 July 2006: Michelle Grattan wrote about truth in politics in today’s Age.

The betting market again lengthened for the Coalition in aggregate (albeit only slightly). The average of the four bookmakers suggested a 56.8 per cent probability of a Coalition government (down from 57.5 per cent last week, and 58.2 per cent the week before), and a 43.2 per cent chance of a Labor government following the 2007 Federal election.

• For a Coalition win Centrebet would pay $1.60 and for a Labor win it would pay $2.20. The implied probability of a Coalition win at the next election is 57.9 per cent (up on 56.0 per cent last Monday)
• For a Coalition win IASBet would pay $1.70 and for a Labor win it would pay $2.15. The implied probability of a Coalition win at the next election is 55.8 per cent (down from 58.4 per cent)
• SportingBet is paying $1.67 for a Coalition win and $2.10 for a Labor win. The implied probability of a Coalition win at the next election is 55.7 per cent (down from 57.6 per cent)
• SportsBet is paying $1.60 for a Coalition win and $2.20 for a Labor win. The implied probability of a Coalition win at the next election is 57.9 per cent (unchanged)

The usual graphs are here. You may need to hit the refresh or reload button on your browser to see the latest graphs.

The latest ACNielsen poll of 1416 voters, taken from last Thursday to Saturday, was published in today’s Fairfax press (here and here).

The headline result is a national two-party preferred vote predication of 52 per cent for Labor (up one on the previous month) and 48 per cent for the Coalition (down 1).

The primary vote predictions are: Labor would get 41 per cent (up 5), the Coalition on 43 per cent (up 2), Greens on 10 per cent (down 1), Democrats on 2 per cent (unchanged), independents on 3 per cent (down 3), One Nation on 1 per cent (unchanged), and other on 2 per cent (down 1).

As is sometimes the case with ACNielsen, these results add to 102 per cent because of rounding. unfortunately, this makes it difficult to to fully analyse the ACNielsen results, and as a consequence, some of my graphs may be a little out.

What does it all mean? Well not a lot. First it was poll taken over school holidays (always suspect). Second, I think ACNielsen’s June primary vote prediction for Labor was unusually down. Today’s result is only up one on May’s result for Labor. Third, perhaps it is as Howard’s supporters spun it last week: the Liberal Party leadership spat had little impact beyond the rarefied reaches of Canberra.

Nonetheless, the government is behind in the polls. And the preferred prime minister results suggest that Beazley is back in the game. Howard got 53 per cent (down 1), and Beazley got 38 per cent (up 5). Beazley has steadily climbed a total of 11 points since his low of 27 per cent in March.

The usual opinion poll graphs are here. You may need to hit the refresh or reload button on your browser to see the latest graphs.

Costello and the Liberal Party leadership

While it has been reported that ACNielsen found that more people believed Costello’s claims than Howard’s denial, it is difficult to discern from the reporting the actual question asked. For example, the Age reported:

Forty-six per cent believed Mr Costello’s claim last week that Mr Howard gave him an undertaking 12 years ago that he would serve 1½ terms as prime minister and then hand him the leadership. Just 35 per cent accepted Mr Howard’s version that there was no deal.

From the SMH we had:

But the Prime Minister fared poorly when respondents were asked whose version of leadership talks 12 years ago they believed. Asked if they backed Mr Costello’s version - that Mr Howard undertook to serve 1½ terms as prime minister before handing over to him - or Mr Howard’s denial of such a deal, 46 per cent said they believed Mr Costello and 35 per cent Mr Howard.

If the question was written as reported in the SMH, I don’t know how I would answer it. Clearly, Howard said to Costello he intended to serve one and a half terms as prime minister. Howard has not denied that the conversation took place; he has merely denied that it was an undertaking or deal.

When a survey question garbles the facts (in this case, what has and has not been denied), it is typically an example of poor question design. Perhaps, the poor question design contributed to the partisan result. According to the Age, “Mr Costello is believed by two-thirds of Labor voters but just a quarter of Coalition supporters; more than half of Coalition voters believe Mr Howard while less than a quarter of ALP voters do”

The SMH reported, “The number of voters who believe Mr Howard will serve a full term has risen to a record 76 per cent from 44 per cent just before the last election, in October 2004.”

Following Glenn Milne’s revelations, Centrebet reopened two books this week.

The first allowed punters to bet on the year in which Howard’s reign, as Prime Minister, would end. Surprisingly, the odds in this market do not appear particularly affected by the recent spat.

The second allowed punters to bet on who would lead the Coalition to the next election. In this market, Howard has firmed as the favourite, with Costello running a long way behind in second place. But perhaps more interestingly, Abbott and Downer are no longer viewed as having any chance at all. Defence Minister Brendan Nelsen is sitting in third place. And the Parliamentary Secretary for Water, Malcolm Turnbull, is in fourth place.

Discuss.