Oz Politics Blog

I have played a bit more with my earlier hypothesis that the 1996 election was a seller’s election, and should there be a change of government this year, it would be a buyer’s election.

The following graph compares the net satisfaction rating for the prime minister and the opposition leader. To help situate the chart, the elections are indicated with the vertical purple lines and the changes of opposition leaders are indicated with vertical orange lines.

In the next graph I have subtracted the net satisfaction rating for the opposition leader from the prime minister’s net satisfaction rating. This differential yields a net satisfaction bias to the prime minister. A positive number suggests the prime minister is more satisfying. A negative number suggests the opposition leader is more satisfying.

In the following graph, I have overlaid primary voting intention for the government with the Prime Minister’s net satisfaction rating.

In the Keating years, the government primary vote was relatively higher than the Prime Minister’s satisfaction rating. In the first two Howard terms they were equal (or I have made them that way in my alignment of the graphs). In the last two Howard years, the government primary vote is often relatively lower than the Prime Minister’s satisfaction rating. It is a little speculative, but this looks consistent with the notion of a selling mood under Keating, and buying mood for much of the time after the 2001 election (at least relative to the Keating period). It is also worth noting that the electorate would not buy or sell when the trade (Hewson/Latham) was too expensive.

Any comments?