Oz Politics Blog

Lateline last night pre-announced today’s Newspoll result. The two-party preferred vote prediction was 61 per cent for Labor and 39 per cent for the Coalition. That is a fairly consistent picture now from each of the polling organisations. It also looks like an Opposition record for Newspoll. I had to extend the axis on both graphs (below). Even the Australian’s Dennis Shanahan conceded the Prime Minister may be in trouble.

However, it is more difficult to interpret these results in the context of the Newspoll series, which has lurched Rudd’s way some seven points over the past month (see following charts). Certainly, the ethics wars, including Santoro’s 72 episodes of forgetfulness, provide a plausible explanation for the movement. And it is possible that the Newspoll a month ago was a touch roguish in Howard’s favour. Nonetheless, my instincts are to defer any assessment of this new high for Labor (for a poll or two) so that we can determine whether today’s results represent random noise or a new level of support for Kevin Rudd.

I still think that 61 per cent is completely implausible as a prediction for the next election. However, a two-party preferred vote for Labor in the mid fifties (54-55-56) would not be impossible if these greater than 60 per cent results are repeated over the next few polls.

The primary vote predictions were 52 per cent for Labor and 34 per cent for the Coalition.

On the question of the preferred prime minister: Howard got 36% and Rudd 49%.

In the beauty contest polling, Howard continued his journey into the land of net dissatisfaction.

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.

Next chapter in the ethics wars: The suggestion that Santo Santoro may have used his ministerial position to influence the awarding of aged care places to a Liberal Party mate will make for an interesting question time in Parliament today.

Around the blogs: Troppo, Pollbludger, Surfdom, dogfightatbankstown, Matt Price. Also, Peter Martin is tipping an interest rate rise in April.

Today I was asked for my views on the relative merits of opinion polls versus betting markets as a predictive tool on election outcomes. I answered along the following lines.

If the polls and the betting market are giving different messages, I would tend to favour the betting market over the polls when it comes to making a prediction about the next election. It is not an iron-clad rule, just a strong preference.

Voter intention polls do not seek to predict the next election outcome. They seek to predict how the nation would have voted were an election held on the day of the opinion poll. In effect, they report the current state of play between the rival parties.

When polling is used to predict an election outcome, we make the assumption that nothing significant will change between now and the election (or that the current trend line will continue unabated). It is an heroic assumption. We all know the aphorism, “a week is a long time in politics”. Things can and do change.

In addition, some have suggested that a sizable proportion of the population is politically disengaged between elections, and they respond to polls in terms of their evolving preferences and reactions to news and events, rather than with a considered voting intention.

In practice, voter intention polls used predictively are less reliable the further out from an election they are. Even six months out, they are not particularly reliable.

Their reliability, even at close quarters, is further compromised by the high volatility in the predictions from polling organisations. The polls typically jump around from one report to the next. It is very easy to read too much into a particular poll, or how one poll differs from the previous poll. They have a high noise to signal ratio.

When individuals bet on the next election outcome, they are putting their money on a particular outcome. The bookmaker is constantly adjusting the odds so that no matter who wins the election, the contingent payout to the punters is less than the total amount bet. This way, the bookmaker should always make a profit (of course they can be caught by a large very late bet). Because the bookmaker is constantly the adjusting the odds, the odds reflect the weight of moneyed opinion for each of the outcomes. It is quite a simple arithmetic procedure to convert these odds to probabilities.

Over recent years, betting markets have typically predicted election outcomes earlier and more consistently than voter intention polls, with much less volatility.

But betting markets are not perfect. For example, the punter’s favourite did not win the 2005 New Zealand election. Although to be fair, immediately prior to the election the betting market predicted that NZ Labour had 9 chances in 20 of winning the election and the Nationals 11 chances in 20. In probability terms, that is pretty close to neck and neck. The final result — NZ Labour — was not that unlikely an outcome from the betting market’s perspective, as it had given them 9 chances in 20 of winning.

If the Coalition wins in NSW this Saturday, it would count as an election the betting market did not predict. It would also be an election the polls did not predict. Somehow, I think it unlikely.

Today’s Australian reported on some social research from the Ipsos Mackay Group.

The findings contain a mixed blessing for Labor. While voters are interested in the new Opposition Leader, they still don’t know him. There is also an expectation that Mr Howard will “pull a rabbit out of the hat” at the last minute to secure a fifth term for the Coalition.

The danger for Mr Howard is that his core constituencies of middle-income families and the over-55s are beginning to fret about the future and are considering the switch to Labor.

Offsetting this trend is the rising conservatism of the so-called Generation Y - the younger-than-30 voter bloc that has never known recession.

The report went on to argue that while the opinion polls have Rudd well and truly in front, that support is soft. The report described it is as “registering interest and relief rather than a commitment to vote Labor”. The big downside for Rudd is that the voters still do not feel they know him.

Howard’s weakness is not interest rates as such, but the uncertainty implicit in WorkChoices and his Government’s perceived lack of commitment on the environment.

The report concludes with the observation that “despite the swing to Labor, people expect Howard to win. They are just waiting to see how he is going to do it.”

It is easy — perhaps too easy — for the statistician in me to dismiss qualitative polling out of hand. However, while the qualitative methodology does not allow us to make generalised predictions with a known degree of confidence, they do allow us to better understand why people are responding in the polls the way they do.

In my reading, this report appears quite equivocal. In that, it is consistent with the betting markets, that currently have it as neck and neck between Howard and Rudd. It points to some people considering a change of vote, but not to a wholesale mood for change in the electorate. At the moment, if there is to be a change of government, the report would suggest it will not be with the exceptionally high two-party preferred vote share for Labor that we see in the polls.

Hat tip to rafyMP.

Morgan has released its polling results for last weekend. The poll of 1055 voters predicted a two-party preferred vote of 61 per cent for Labor and 39 per cent for the Coalition. This is essentially unchanged on the previous week.

The primary vote predictions were 34 per cent for the Coalition and 51.5 per cent for Labor.

Yes, it is another landslide-win-for-Labor poll.

Increasingly, the Morgan series is suggesting the public expects Kevin Rudd to win the next election (or at least the trend appears to be in that direction).

Perhaps more interesting was the wider qualitative polling:

Supporters of the Liberal Party cite its economic management - and Labor’s ineptitude - as a major reason for their preference:

“I don’t trust the Labor Party — they bankrupt everything they touch.”
 “Australia is doing so well at the moment with Liberal. Policies and economic situation is good.”
“Liberals will protect my beliefs and investments in retirement.  Labor will destroy investment.”
“I don’t trust Labor’s fiscal management.  Labor have only reverse policies, not their own.”
“I own my own business — the economy has been good the last 10 years or so. I agree with Liberal’s WorkChoices.”
“I have far more trust in the Coalition regarding economic management. The ALP has too many ties with the unions.”
“I like Howard’s track-record but I’m swinging at the moment.  Kevin Rudd and his crew are putting forward a good case but they are not quite there on the economy and health.”

Another major attraction for Liberal supporters is John Howard’s experience and leadership:

“John Howard has done a very good job.”
“I like John Howard — he is the most honest politician.”
“I think John Howard’s not too bad; let him finish what he’s doing.”
“Howard’s been doing a good job.  I don’t have any major complaints about how he’s running the country.”
“I like Howard’s policies; he is a good leader.”
“The Liberal Party is hard-working.  John Howard is an honest man.”
“I like Howard, he has done a good job and I don’t like the others.”

The unpopularity of Prime Minister John Howard is continuing to sway voters toward the ALP:

“I don’t like John Howard — he just sucks up to George Bush.”
“In the last few years, John Howard has told a lot of lies.”
“I’m voting ALP just to get John Howard out of Canberra.”
“John Howard and his Government will not do anything about climate change — they have more powerful interests pushing them.”
“There has been no democracy with John Howard in charge; our civil liberties have been eroded.”
“I want to get rid of John Howard.”

The Coalition Government’s unpopular industrial relations laws continue to strengthen the Labor Party’s support base:

“I have a great concern over the new IR laws — there is now a huge gap between the haves and the have-nots.”
“People are not safe against the WorkChoices policies of the Liberals.”
“The award (pay) issues that Howard has introduced are unfair to working class people.”
“The ALP has more of a social conscience with regards to IR.”
“John Howard’s WorkChoices show that he is not for the ordinary Australian.”

A number of ALP supporters are excited by the qualities that Kevin Rudd exhibits:

“I like Rudd at the moment — he impresses me.  Howard needs to retire.  I don’t like the workplace health reforms that he has brought in.”
“I don’t want Howard.  Kevin Rudd is more human and approachable.”
“I like Kevin Rudd. I don’t like John or what he’s done.  It would be good to see someone new in.”
“Rudd is a breath of fresh air.”

The release was unexpected, as Morgan usually aggregates its polling over two weekends before a release. Morgan has released single weekend polling before, but typically when is points to significant discontinuity with previous polling. This release appears to be an exception. The price for Morgan with weekly releases is the increased error margin.

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.

The average probability from the five bookies for a Coalition government following the 2007 election is 48.1 per cent. It was 52.0 per cent on Sunday.

I know a lot of people see significance depending on which side of the half way mark the probability of winning lies. Personally, I am inclined to see anything in the 45-55 ranges as pretty-well a bet each way. We have been in this territory now for around 6 weeks.

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