Oz Politics Blog

Howard’s contention is that just as the Coalition won in 2001 and 2004, so it will win in 2007. It is a plausible argument. Early in 2001 and 2004, the Opposition was well ahead in the polls, but from around the fourth month of the year until the election, the Opposition slowly declined in the opinion polls, and ultimately lost the election. The trend can be seen clearest in the historically more reliable ACNielsen series, but it is also evident in the Newspoll series.

If Howard is correct, we can expect Labor’s polling to improve over the next four to eight weeks. Indeed, we may not be able to test the deja vu election hypothesis before May or June this year, by when the beginnings of a downward trend should have materialised. If it has not, we can kiss the hypothesis goodbye.

The plausibility of the deja vu election hypothesis makes it difficult calling this election in the first half of 2007. As the 2001 and 2004 elections demonstrated, the polling trends eight months out from an election are not necessarily a reliable indicator of the election outcome.

The electorate’s romance with Rudd that blossomed in December 2006 showed no signs of fading in January 2007. Howard will be hoping this is nothing more than summer love.

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.

One bookmaker is providing even odds for a Labor and Coalition win at the 2007 Federal election, and the odds with most other bookmakers have shortened for Labor since Saturday. The average probability from the five bookies of a Coalition government following the 2007 election is 51.9 per cent. It was 54.4 per cent on Saturday 3 February 2007 — just three days ago.

• For a Coalition win Centrebet would pay $1.80 and for a Labor win it would pay $1.90. The implied probability of a Coalition win at the next election is 51.4 per cent (was 53.8 per cent)
• For a Coalition win IASBet would pay $1.80 and for a Labor win it would pay $2.00. The implied probability of a Coalition win at the next election is 52.6 per cent (unchanged)
• SportingBet is paying $1.90 for a Coalition win and $1.90 for a Labor win. The implied probability of a Coalition win at the next election is 50.0 per cent (was 55.7 per cent)
• SportsBet is paying $1.77 for a Coalition win and $2.00 for a Labor win. The implied probability of a Coalition win at the next election is 53.1 per cent (was 55.3 per cent)
• For a Coalition win SportsAcumen would pay $1.77 and for a Labor win it would pay $1.95. The implied probability of a Coalition win at the next election is 52.4 per cent (was 54.7 per cent)

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

Today’s Australian has the Newspoll results from last weekend. The headline finding was a predicted national two-party preferred vote of 56 per cent for Labor and 44 per cent for the Coalition.

According to the paper, the Prime Minister responded to these poll findings by comparing them with his position in 2001 and 2004.

“I’ve been here before. I was in that sort of situation, broadly speaking, in 2001 and also in 2004,” he told the ABC’s Lateline. “Do I think I’ve got a tough fight? Yes, I do.”

However, as can be seen in the next graph, Kevin Rudd enters the 2007 election year in a much better shape in the polls than either Mark Latham in 2004 or Kim Beazley in 2001. Nonetheless, as Shanahan notes, there is still eight months to the election. It will be interesting to see whether Howard can effect a similar wind back to earlier years from about week ten in 2007.

While it may not be all that significant electorally, Rudd is also doing well in the beauty contest polling.

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

Scott Bennett from the Parliamentary Library has written an interesting paper on the recent NSW redistribution. The executive summary from the paper follows.

The 2005–06 redistribution of New South Wales House of Representatives divisions was
controversial because of the loss of a rural division, but also because the Redistribution
Committee decided to take a new approach to drawing boundaries. The Committee claimed
that it was no longer relevant to see physical features as barriers to communication in
electoral divisions where there were substantial transport and communications links, and
based some decisions on that judgment.

Despite the fact that many rural residents had called for the abolition of one of the Sydney
seats that had suffered a decline in population, the redistribution proposal:

• abolished the northern ‘Federation’ division of Gwydir
• massively expanded the north-western division of Parkes
• made the Bathurst-centred division of Calare much larger, and
• extended Macquarie so as to have it partly in the Blue Mountains and partly beyond them.

In western New South Wales the reaction was immediate and hostile, revealing a lack of
public understanding of the redistribution process. Opponents criticised:

• the disappearance of a rural division rather than a Sydney division
• the loss of ‘community of interest’ in huge divisions
• the difficulty rural MPs would have in servicing their constituents, and
• the loss of a ‘Federation’ division.

Prior to issuing the final redistribution, two officially-convened public meetings gave the
members of a ‘Save Gwydir’ campaign the chance to address redistribution officials. Despite
optimism that rural concerns had been heeded, the final redistribution still annoyed many:

• ‘Gwydir’ as a division name was not saved
• Calare was greatly enlarged, extending to the Queensland border, and
• there was no joy for the opponents of the changes to Macquarie.

Possible alterations to the redistribution system are discussed in the paper, though the politics involved in electoral redistributions suggest that this part of the electoral process is unlikely to be altered. The paper also asks whether the redistribution officials should have engaged
more with the public throughout the redistribution.