There was muted reaction to the theatre of the ALP's director, Tim Gartrell, prematurely requesting three election debates, one of which to be held in the cyber confines of Youtube. Rather than discuss the merits of such setpieces, here are some of the issues that should be the subject of sustained debate and each party should, in the democratic tradition, present us with some form of policy alternative to resolve.
1. Climate change - carbon transition of the economy and impact management. Climate change covers the full ambit from renewable energy and power supply, state/federal management of the electricity grid, pricing and fairness to the poor who will struggle with bill increases, international diplomacy and regional assistance in the setting and maintenance of targets, not to mention defence of cities and coastlines from rising sea levels and storms. We need serious plans now, showing the favoured approaches in terms of necessary reductions in emissions, technologies and timelines for their achievement and how these approaches will be implemented.
2. Low-tax, low service or high-tax, high service economies - do we follow the US-based private ownership model or adopt a more Scandanavian strategy and accept higher taxes in exchange for better services.
3. Economic development - exploitation of resources or intellectual capital - the choice between traditional industry such as mining or development of an economy of ideas with maximum investment in education and training throughout the workforce.
4. Sustainable agriculture - do we let the market decide which land should be farmed and for what purpose or do we implement restrictions on water-guzzling crops such as cotton.
5. Commercial sponsorship - what degree of commercial involvement are we prepared to accept in exchange for more money for services such as education and health. Are we willing to accept gambling and tax revenue from tobacco and alcohol as a necessary evil?
6. Service delivery - do we need the states or is centralising services the best way to go? is regional government better?
7. Democratic reform - do we need a Bill of Rights to prevent abuse of power? Proportional representation or non-compulsory voting?
Enough of blank-cheque mandate government. Parties should present at least the core principles of their policy platform that will guide their decisions on issues such as these to allow voters an informed choice on their future.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Lessons from history
Newspoll's own pollsters are looking very nervous judging by the performance of Sol Lebovic at the Sydney Institute last night. Mr Lebovic had the body language of one of the hapless characters in Alien whose scanners had picked up the signs of an ominous presence but they couldn't see the monster coming.
He commented that he considered the ALP's poll figures were soft because he didn't detect the mood of visceral hatred in the community that augured the downfall of Keating and at the last few elections up to 10% of voters decided in the booth, while over a quarter didn't decide until the campaign. Methinks he has been seduced by the satisfaction conundrum - how can a PM who has been in power for a decade have a satisfaction rating in the forties or higher and yet be on the verge of being dumped by a seemingly unstoppable wave. This is just one part of the Howard mythology which blinds many of the commentariat to the fact that the times no longer suit honest John.
Howard's approval rating reflects how well he has done his job, not how well he will do it in the future. I happen to agree with Downer et al and their talk about competence being the test for government in Australia.
The problem for Howard is that he's gone from being the most competent economic manager in federal history to being regarded as no longer equipped to manage the economic future. Rudd, on the other hand, is not scaring the economic horses Latham-style. He passes basic competence 101 - he does not have either crazy economic policies such as Medicare Gold, or a frightening program such as Fightback. Howard's attempts to paint Rudd as irresponsible on climate change targets miss the point: people want action, it is inaction that is fatal here, putting the economy before the policy. The ALP has won two elections on environmental issues, including a massive victory in 1983, riding the wave of opposition to the Franklin Dam. It is about to win a third because unless it blocks the Tamar pulp mill, the government hasn't got a candle on environmental matters. The ALP is certainly several wicks short of a candelabrum, but it at least has some kind of belief and understanding on climate change. Whoever's running Howard's campaign should be shot because in two days they managed to generate both sympathy for Julia Gillard and give Peter Garrett the opportunity to sound passionate on the environment. It's almost as if one Newspoll went to their collective heads and they ran roughshod over common sense.
As with climate change, the hubris-laden overkill that is Workchoices demonstrates comprehensively how out of touch the Libs are, beholden to a lunatic fringe that believes in cutting job security and core conditions rather than serious economic reform.
Because the government has no future competence and has lost the ear of the people, it will lose provided there are no abnormal factors such as economic insecurity or terrorism to influence the vote. At the election, the choice is between Howard and Howard + fixing climate change and work choices.
As for this idea that this election is like 1998, 2001 and 2004, this is quite simply wrong. In all those elections, the ALP was not in the game as having economic credentials. The ALP's primary vote has averaged almost 47% for a year. It has not done that for 20 years. For the ALP to lose, it has to get fewer primary votes then it has in any poll (Newspoll's second poll taken after he was elected gave ALP 44%)taken since Rudd became leader.
The other thing is that in 2001, Howard had just resurrected his government by an outbreak of 'listening to the people'. Oh yes, and his Medicare advertising neutralised health somewhat as a hot button issue.
This election is 1996 redux - the primary vote ranges for government + opposition were:
1995-96 (Keating v Howard): ALP 34-43 ; Lib/Nat 46-53 (Result: 38.7 v 47)
2006-07 (Howard v Rudd): Lib/Nat: 34-41; ALP 44-52
Remember that's the primary vote, and given preferences favour ALP over Lib/Nats approximately 60-40, that would come close to cancelling out Howard's 2004 election buffer in his marginals. Hawke got 53.2% of the 2PP vote in 1983, a result Rudd would be more than happy with.
He commented that he considered the ALP's poll figures were soft because he didn't detect the mood of visceral hatred in the community that augured the downfall of Keating and at the last few elections up to 10% of voters decided in the booth, while over a quarter didn't decide until the campaign. Methinks he has been seduced by the satisfaction conundrum - how can a PM who has been in power for a decade have a satisfaction rating in the forties or higher and yet be on the verge of being dumped by a seemingly unstoppable wave. This is just one part of the Howard mythology which blinds many of the commentariat to the fact that the times no longer suit honest John.
Howard's approval rating reflects how well he has done his job, not how well he will do it in the future. I happen to agree with Downer et al and their talk about competence being the test for government in Australia.
The problem for Howard is that he's gone from being the most competent economic manager in federal history to being regarded as no longer equipped to manage the economic future. Rudd, on the other hand, is not scaring the economic horses Latham-style. He passes basic competence 101 - he does not have either crazy economic policies such as Medicare Gold, or a frightening program such as Fightback. Howard's attempts to paint Rudd as irresponsible on climate change targets miss the point: people want action, it is inaction that is fatal here, putting the economy before the policy. The ALP has won two elections on environmental issues, including a massive victory in 1983, riding the wave of opposition to the Franklin Dam. It is about to win a third because unless it blocks the Tamar pulp mill, the government hasn't got a candle on environmental matters. The ALP is certainly several wicks short of a candelabrum, but it at least has some kind of belief and understanding on climate change. Whoever's running Howard's campaign should be shot because in two days they managed to generate both sympathy for Julia Gillard and give Peter Garrett the opportunity to sound passionate on the environment. It's almost as if one Newspoll went to their collective heads and they ran roughshod over common sense.
As with climate change, the hubris-laden overkill that is Workchoices demonstrates comprehensively how out of touch the Libs are, beholden to a lunatic fringe that believes in cutting job security and core conditions rather than serious economic reform.
Because the government has no future competence and has lost the ear of the people, it will lose provided there are no abnormal factors such as economic insecurity or terrorism to influence the vote. At the election, the choice is between Howard and Howard + fixing climate change and work choices.
As for this idea that this election is like 1998, 2001 and 2004, this is quite simply wrong. In all those elections, the ALP was not in the game as having economic credentials. The ALP's primary vote has averaged almost 47% for a year. It has not done that for 20 years. For the ALP to lose, it has to get fewer primary votes then it has in any poll (Newspoll's second poll taken after he was elected gave ALP 44%)taken since Rudd became leader.
The other thing is that in 2001, Howard had just resurrected his government by an outbreak of 'listening to the people'. Oh yes, and his Medicare advertising neutralised health somewhat as a hot button issue.
This election is 1996 redux - the primary vote ranges for government + opposition were:
1995-96 (Keating v Howard): ALP 34-43 ; Lib/Nat 46-53 (Result: 38.7 v 47)
2006-07 (Howard v Rudd): Lib/Nat: 34-41; ALP 44-52
Remember that's the primary vote, and given preferences favour ALP over Lib/Nats approximately 60-40, that would come close to cancelling out Howard's 2004 election buffer in his marginals. Hawke got 53.2% of the 2PP vote in 1983, a result Rudd would be more than happy with.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Howard's (Anti)Republican Climate Change Policy
The Achilles heel of the Howard government has always been climate change. It has had skeptic-based policies on the subject since its election, and has successively attempted to frustrate global initiatives on binding emission targets and caused the departure of solar and wind power companies to China and California. It comes as no surprise that books are now on sale documenting the role of a 'greenhouse mafia' in climate change policy.
In the midst of a perfect storm caused by a lingering El Nino drought, the release of Al Gore's persuasive documentary An Inconvenient Truth and the revival of the ALP under Kevin Rudd, climate change has become a hot button issue for the community. Howard, who along with the majority of his cabinet rejected a proposal in 2003 to establish an emissions trading scheme has succumbed and agreed to implement a cap and trade scheme to commence operation by 2012.
The whole tenor of the debate looks remarkably like the hot button issue that Howard inherited on his accession to the Lodge (or Kirribilli)...the republic. Howard, a life-long monarchist, simply didn't believe in the proposal. In fact, he did everything in his power to frustrate the vote. He determined that instead of a two-stage process (a plebiscite on the issue of the republic and then a second vote on the actual model), there would be one vote on the model offered by the Constitutional Committee set up in 1998. He also muddied the waters still further by adding a preamble which was even less popular than a bunch of politicians.
Howard's climate change policy is to offer nuclear as a major source of energy (which will not come on line for at least 15-20 years). He presents the case that renewable energy cannot deliver baseload power (the fact that the ALP advocates clean coal has a much to do with preventing it being cast as anti-business and avoiding wedge politics with miners and the coal industry as ideological committment) and that targets should only be set after economic analysis of their effects. The last point, while reasonable on the surface, is in fact code for protecting the industrial status quo. The tenor of the Stern report was that decision-makers should look at the science first to set requisite targets and then consider the economic pathways and repercussions from management of the targets.
Instead of offering targets based on science, we have targets based on supporting the coal, steel and aluminium industries. Instead of renewable energy targets, we have energy reduction targets of 15% and low emission source targets. Low emission technologies are a second or third line defence - they should not be the frontline. Howard's proposal seeks to abolish the state MRET (mandatory renewable energy targets) while replacing them with non-mandatory renewables targets - i.e. option to use renewable energy. Australia must seek to build its renewable industries to be capable of servicing our entire needs by the middle of this century. Under this proposal, renewable energy investment will surely stagnate - it will move offshore and be further consolidated in countries such as China, Germany, the UK and Japan.
These policies are designed to wreck renewable energy - what Howard cannot understand even more than the notion of anthromorphic climate change is the concept that energy sources need not be concentrated in central power station infrastructure. Essentially this is the PM listening to the second verse of the hymn book - 'renewables alone cannot power the economy'. This is not merely misguided thinking, it is dangerous thinking. The PM would be advised, when considering these policy decisions to consider our future competitiveness in a post-carbon era. The seeds are being sown for us to become economic Neanderthal men, perfectly adapted to an age of cheap exploitative industry but hopelessly inept in the high tech world of renewable energy harnessing and consolidation.
In the midst of a perfect storm caused by a lingering El Nino drought, the release of Al Gore's persuasive documentary An Inconvenient Truth and the revival of the ALP under Kevin Rudd, climate change has become a hot button issue for the community. Howard, who along with the majority of his cabinet rejected a proposal in 2003 to establish an emissions trading scheme has succumbed and agreed to implement a cap and trade scheme to commence operation by 2012.
The whole tenor of the debate looks remarkably like the hot button issue that Howard inherited on his accession to the Lodge (or Kirribilli)...the republic. Howard, a life-long monarchist, simply didn't believe in the proposal. In fact, he did everything in his power to frustrate the vote. He determined that instead of a two-stage process (a plebiscite on the issue of the republic and then a second vote on the actual model), there would be one vote on the model offered by the Constitutional Committee set up in 1998. He also muddied the waters still further by adding a preamble which was even less popular than a bunch of politicians.
Howard's climate change policy is to offer nuclear as a major source of energy (which will not come on line for at least 15-20 years). He presents the case that renewable energy cannot deliver baseload power (the fact that the ALP advocates clean coal has a much to do with preventing it being cast as anti-business and avoiding wedge politics with miners and the coal industry as ideological committment) and that targets should only be set after economic analysis of their effects. The last point, while reasonable on the surface, is in fact code for protecting the industrial status quo. The tenor of the Stern report was that decision-makers should look at the science first to set requisite targets and then consider the economic pathways and repercussions from management of the targets.
Instead of offering targets based on science, we have targets based on supporting the coal, steel and aluminium industries. Instead of renewable energy targets, we have energy reduction targets of 15% and low emission source targets. Low emission technologies are a second or third line defence - they should not be the frontline. Howard's proposal seeks to abolish the state MRET (mandatory renewable energy targets) while replacing them with non-mandatory renewables targets - i.e. option to use renewable energy. Australia must seek to build its renewable industries to be capable of servicing our entire needs by the middle of this century. Under this proposal, renewable energy investment will surely stagnate - it will move offshore and be further consolidated in countries such as China, Germany, the UK and Japan.
These policies are designed to wreck renewable energy - what Howard cannot understand even more than the notion of anthromorphic climate change is the concept that energy sources need not be concentrated in central power station infrastructure. Essentially this is the PM listening to the second verse of the hymn book - 'renewables alone cannot power the economy'. This is not merely misguided thinking, it is dangerous thinking. The PM would be advised, when considering these policy decisions to consider our future competitiveness in a post-carbon era. The seeds are being sown for us to become economic Neanderthal men, perfectly adapted to an age of cheap exploitative industry but hopelessly inept in the high tech world of renewable energy harnessing and consolidation.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
No News is good News(Poll)
The collective groupthink that says that Howard shouldn't lose is in full swing with the latest Newspoll.
The headline figures make it look like there's been a stampede for the exit from Rudd's faux campaign launch with an 8% swing in the primary and two party-preferred vote. There are two possible reasons why this is a storm in a teacup (and of less interest than whether indeed the Storm can win the premiership, even for the Melbourne punters):
1. Circumstances - Rudd made a major health announcement and impressed on the international stage with his APEC performance in the previous polling period (plus his one-off appearance at Scores of New York), in the last week Howard confirmed he was contesting the election, in the process electing some kind of sympathy from his supporters/ and or neutrals.
2. Statistical trend - The poll average for the entire year is 57/43 to ALP. This poll is 55/45, the previous one is 59/41 - average is 57/43! The polls are in almost identical territory to in early August just after the subprime-loan inspired financial uncertainty.
The preferred PM figures demonstrate absolutely no change of any consequence. Indeed, the real story here is the fact that nearly 85% of voters have already made up their mind. Some quick maths on the primary vote figures versus those who won't change their vote reveals:
56% won't change vote ALP vote is 47% = 26.32%
30% unlikely to change = 14.1%
ALP total likely confirmed vote = 40.42
56% won't change vote Lib/Nat vote is 41% = 22.96%
30% unlikely to change = 12.3
Libs/Nats total likely confirmed vote = 35.26
If we assume the minor parties will get 12% of the vote and that ALP needs more than 52% to win enough seats for a majority and Lib/Nats can hang on with only 48% on two party-preferred:
With a preference flow of 60/40 to ALP - 7.2% to ALP/ 4.8% to Libs/Nats
ALP victory target: 44.8% primary vote + 7.2 = 52%
Libs/Nats victory target: 43.2% + 4.8 = 48%
ALP currently hold (at least) 5.6% of undecideds
Libs/Nats currently hold (no more than) 5.7% of undecideds
ALP to win need only to hold 4.4% of 5.6% [approx 80%]
Libs/Nats need all their current share plus 1.2% from elsewhere (probably straight from ALP)
Or put another way, ALP need 4.4 of 11.3% to give them their primary vote - 38.9% of undecideds
For Libs/Nats to win by almost nothing, with one of the lowest two-party preferred votes in history, it needs to convince nearly two-thirds of undecided voters considering a major party to give it their primary vote.
Given the psychology involved, if Rudd has a good couple of weeks and Newspoll reverts to 57/43, nothing has changed in the trend and ALP will win. For Libs/Nats to win the next poll must move the trend line back towards 53-57 rather than 55-59.
The headline figures make it look like there's been a stampede for the exit from Rudd's faux campaign launch with an 8% swing in the primary and two party-preferred vote. There are two possible reasons why this is a storm in a teacup (and of less interest than whether indeed the Storm can win the premiership, even for the Melbourne punters):
1. Circumstances - Rudd made a major health announcement and impressed on the international stage with his APEC performance in the previous polling period (plus his one-off appearance at Scores of New York), in the last week Howard confirmed he was contesting the election, in the process electing some kind of sympathy from his supporters/ and or neutrals.
2. Statistical trend - The poll average for the entire year is 57/43 to ALP. This poll is 55/45, the previous one is 59/41 - average is 57/43! The polls are in almost identical territory to in early August just after the subprime-loan inspired financial uncertainty.
The preferred PM figures demonstrate absolutely no change of any consequence. Indeed, the real story here is the fact that nearly 85% of voters have already made up their mind. Some quick maths on the primary vote figures versus those who won't change their vote reveals:
56% won't change vote ALP vote is 47% = 26.32%
30% unlikely to change = 14.1%
ALP total likely confirmed vote = 40.42
56% won't change vote Lib/Nat vote is 41% = 22.96%
30% unlikely to change = 12.3
Libs/Nats total likely confirmed vote = 35.26
If we assume the minor parties will get 12% of the vote and that ALP needs more than 52% to win enough seats for a majority and Lib/Nats can hang on with only 48% on two party-preferred:
With a preference flow of 60/40 to ALP - 7.2% to ALP/ 4.8% to Libs/Nats
ALP victory target: 44.8% primary vote + 7.2 = 52%
Libs/Nats victory target: 43.2% + 4.8 = 48%
ALP currently hold (at least) 5.6% of undecideds
Libs/Nats currently hold (no more than) 5.7% of undecideds
ALP to win need only to hold 4.4% of 5.6% [approx 80%]
Libs/Nats need all their current share plus 1.2% from elsewhere (probably straight from ALP)
Or put another way, ALP need 4.4 of 11.3% to give them their primary vote - 38.9% of undecideds
For Libs/Nats to win by almost nothing, with one of the lowest two-party preferred votes in history, it needs to convince nearly two-thirds of undecided voters considering a major party to give it their primary vote.
Given the psychology involved, if Rudd has a good couple of weeks and Newspoll reverts to 57/43, nothing has changed in the trend and ALP will win. For Libs/Nats to win the next poll must move the trend line back towards 53-57 rather than 55-59.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Election Pontifications
More ramblings on the interminable election...
Libs cannot win with either a wall-wall state government or a union scare campaign as both have support levels of only around 40%...this sounds about as low as they can go in terms of support.
Yet another poll has come out saying that the Libs are about to become reacquainted with the dark side of the chamber, although interestingly it highlights the split between employment status and party support, namely if you've got a part-time job, going on and on about work choices giving us 316,000 mainly full time jobs makes no difference.
On the macro front, the fact that Mr Howard is galavanting around current affairs shows saying he is more popular than the party is evidence of his ironclad control of the party and nothing more. The polls should treat his approval rating in the past tense. Because they are not offering anything concrete for the future, all they are doing is conceding it to Mr Rudd. Offering the Howard-Costello two-for-one deal merely concedes Howard cannot beat Rudd, and makes Rudd the authentic article and Costello the cheap imitation (of both Howard and Rudd).
The political dynamic has also changed because Mr Rudd is viewed to be not only competent, but offering more than the incumbent. Hence the stratospheric approval ratings.
I have predicted below that the margin will close a bit but not enough for the Libs to win. They are running out of time and are seriously risking annihilation on an epic scale if they don't start putting up something resembling vision.
Factors which are going to influence votes:
Issues:
1. Health - huge issue in NSW and Qld (where ALP has most to gain)
2. Climate change - particularly among young voters + in coastal areas
3. Water - huge issue in SA
4. Work Choices
5. Interest rates (will either keep Howard in touch or the core mortgage belt voters will destroy Howard's outer suburban dynasty)
Seats:
1. In inner-city seats, particularly Wentworth, and in Tasmania the pulp mill fiasco is a wildcard
2. The quality of the respective candidates
3. Seats with high Chinese populations may lean towards Rudd
4. Seats with high Indian populations may protest over Haneef debacle
5. High proportion of single mothers - welfare changes and child care issues
Given Newspoll's election trend in 1996 looks remarkably similar to 2007, a little look at the fate of the ALP in 1996.
NSW (1996 swing - 7% 2PP, -8.7% primary vote)
2004 vote 36.7% 45% 2PP - Newspoll projection 47?%
Swing of 10-11% about 8-9% 2PP
Definite gains: Macquarie, Lindsay, Eden Monaro, Page, Cowper
50/50: Wentworth, Bennelong, Paterson, Robertson, Dobell
Possible seats: Greenway, Macarthur, North Sydney, Hughes
Minimum of 5 seats and potential maximum of 14
QLD (1996 swing -8.6 2PP
2004 vote 34.8% - Newspoll projection 44?%
Swing of 9% about 7% 2PP
Definite gains: Bonner, Moreton, Herbert
50/50: Blair, Longman, Wright, Petrie, Bowman, Dickson
Possible seats: Hinkler, Ryan, Leichardht
Minimum of 3 seats and maximum of 12
Victoria - projected swing of 6%
Definite Gains: Deakin, McMillian
50/50: La Trobe, Corangamite
Possible seats: Higgins, Goldstein, McEwen, Gippsland
Minimum of 2 seats and maximum of 8
Tasmania - Braddon, Bass both definite gains
NT - Solomon definite gain
SA - Kingston, Wakefield, Makin definite gains
50/50 Boothby, Sturt
Minimum of 5 seats and maximum of 7
WA - Hasluck, Stirling definite gains
Possible seat: Canning
Total:
Definite: 18
50/50: 14
Possible: 12
Total 44 - if ALP win 44 seats, they will have 104 seats which is a comprehensive flogging.
18 seats gives a total of 78 seats, which is a majority of 3
For Libs to get back in, they have to limit the ALP swing to under 6% in NSW. If it is any more than that, then to use a technical term, they will get absolutely smashed.
My prediction is ALP will win 30 seats if the Libs/Nats don't improve their vote during the campaign - that would give them 90 seats, the same number the Libs/Nats had in 1996.
Libs cannot win with either a wall-wall state government or a union scare campaign as both have support levels of only around 40%...this sounds about as low as they can go in terms of support.
Yet another poll has come out saying that the Libs are about to become reacquainted with the dark side of the chamber, although interestingly it highlights the split between employment status and party support, namely if you've got a part-time job, going on and on about work choices giving us 316,000 mainly full time jobs makes no difference.
On the macro front, the fact that Mr Howard is galavanting around current affairs shows saying he is more popular than the party is evidence of his ironclad control of the party and nothing more. The polls should treat his approval rating in the past tense. Because they are not offering anything concrete for the future, all they are doing is conceding it to Mr Rudd. Offering the Howard-Costello two-for-one deal merely concedes Howard cannot beat Rudd, and makes Rudd the authentic article and Costello the cheap imitation (of both Howard and Rudd).
The political dynamic has also changed because Mr Rudd is viewed to be not only competent, but offering more than the incumbent. Hence the stratospheric approval ratings.
I have predicted below that the margin will close a bit but not enough for the Libs to win. They are running out of time and are seriously risking annihilation on an epic scale if they don't start putting up something resembling vision.
Factors which are going to influence votes:
Issues:
1. Health - huge issue in NSW and Qld (where ALP has most to gain)
2. Climate change - particularly among young voters + in coastal areas
3. Water - huge issue in SA
4. Work Choices
5. Interest rates (will either keep Howard in touch or the core mortgage belt voters will destroy Howard's outer suburban dynasty)
Seats:
1. In inner-city seats, particularly Wentworth, and in Tasmania the pulp mill fiasco is a wildcard
2. The quality of the respective candidates
3. Seats with high Chinese populations may lean towards Rudd
4. Seats with high Indian populations may protest over Haneef debacle
5. High proportion of single mothers - welfare changes and child care issues
Given Newspoll's election trend in 1996 looks remarkably similar to 2007, a little look at the fate of the ALP in 1996.
NSW (1996 swing - 7% 2PP, -8.7% primary vote)
2004 vote 36.7% 45% 2PP - Newspoll projection 47?%
Swing of 10-11% about 8-9% 2PP
Definite gains: Macquarie, Lindsay, Eden Monaro, Page, Cowper
50/50: Wentworth, Bennelong, Paterson, Robertson, Dobell
Possible seats: Greenway, Macarthur, North Sydney, Hughes
Minimum of 5 seats and potential maximum of 14
QLD (1996 swing -8.6 2PP
2004 vote 34.8% - Newspoll projection 44?%
Swing of 9% about 7% 2PP
Definite gains: Bonner, Moreton, Herbert
50/50: Blair, Longman, Wright, Petrie, Bowman, Dickson
Possible seats: Hinkler, Ryan, Leichardht
Minimum of 3 seats and maximum of 12
Victoria - projected swing of 6%
Definite Gains: Deakin, McMillian
50/50: La Trobe, Corangamite
Possible seats: Higgins, Goldstein, McEwen, Gippsland
Minimum of 2 seats and maximum of 8
Tasmania - Braddon, Bass both definite gains
NT - Solomon definite gain
SA - Kingston, Wakefield, Makin definite gains
50/50 Boothby, Sturt
Minimum of 5 seats and maximum of 7
WA - Hasluck, Stirling definite gains
Possible seat: Canning
Total:
Definite: 18
50/50: 14
Possible: 12
Total 44 - if ALP win 44 seats, they will have 104 seats which is a comprehensive flogging.
18 seats gives a total of 78 seats, which is a majority of 3
For Libs to get back in, they have to limit the ALP swing to under 6% in NSW. If it is any more than that, then to use a technical term, they will get absolutely smashed.
My prediction is ALP will win 30 seats if the Libs/Nats don't improve their vote during the campaign - that would give them 90 seats, the same number the Libs/Nats had in 1996.
A few notes on climate policy
Climate change is a major issue which needs major action. About ten years too late, the Liberal-occupied Federal Government has just started running some of the more intelligent government advertising it's produced.
As far as policy goes, we should no more trust anything Mr Howard says on climate change than on his intentions vis-a-vis Mr Costello. It is abundantly clear that Mr Howard's psychology makes him disinclined to take real action as he is part of a mining magnate's club and hence is totally unsuited to the job. Mr Rudd's credentials aren't too much better, but at least he shows a willingness to apply himself to factual information rather than believe what a bunch of suits told him.
Policy-wise, we have the Libs offering: 'a successsor to Kyoto', nuclear power (not on line for at least a decade) and lukewarm support for geothermal power, while scrapping the MRET targets.
The ALP bring to the table: 50% emission target by 2050 and an emissions trading scheme 2 years earlier than Libs and ratification of Kyoto but no word on global diplomacy.
Both parties agree on clean coal technology, support for solar water heating programs.
For any climate policy to be worth its salt it must address the problem. That first requires one to establish precisely what the problem is and what action needs to be taken. On climate change the key factor to establish is the sustainable level of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. This should be based on:
1. The level to prevent feedback mechanisms creating an unstoppable cycle and hence making the planet virtually uninhabitable
2. The level to prevent ocean acidification destroying plankton making up the base of the food chain and reducing their role as carbon sinks
3. The best case scenario which is viable both in physical and economic terms.
This should then produce a range of tolerance between two figures providing both a goal for further action and security that action remains viable.
As far as policy goes, we should no more trust anything Mr Howard says on climate change than on his intentions vis-a-vis Mr Costello. It is abundantly clear that Mr Howard's psychology makes him disinclined to take real action as he is part of a mining magnate's club and hence is totally unsuited to the job. Mr Rudd's credentials aren't too much better, but at least he shows a willingness to apply himself to factual information rather than believe what a bunch of suits told him.
Policy-wise, we have the Libs offering: 'a successsor to Kyoto', nuclear power (not on line for at least a decade) and lukewarm support for geothermal power, while scrapping the MRET targets.
The ALP bring to the table: 50% emission target by 2050 and an emissions trading scheme 2 years earlier than Libs and ratification of Kyoto but no word on global diplomacy.
Both parties agree on clean coal technology, support for solar water heating programs.
For any climate policy to be worth its salt it must address the problem. That first requires one to establish precisely what the problem is and what action needs to be taken. On climate change the key factor to establish is the sustainable level of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. This should be based on:
1. The level to prevent feedback mechanisms creating an unstoppable cycle and hence making the planet virtually uninhabitable
2. The level to prevent ocean acidification destroying plankton making up the base of the food chain and reducing their role as carbon sinks
3. The best case scenario which is viable both in physical and economic terms.
This should then produce a range of tolerance between two figures providing both a goal for further action and security that action remains viable.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Cue Celine Dion
The sense that the electoral ship may just be sinking appears to be slowly creeping into the Libs, given the fears of (at least) a NSW wipeout for the government). That would seem a sensible conclusion given the Morgan Poll in Eden Monaro.
In fact the whole scenario reminds me of this exchange from James Cameron's Titanic:
enter Mr. Andrews, Titanic's designer with several ship drawings. He unfolds them on a table with great urgency. As Andrews explains the dire situation, Captain Smith asks eagerly about the pumps.
Andrews replies, From this moment, no matter what I do, Titanic will founder. Mr. Ismay, an executive with White Star Lines, says in disbelief, But this ship can't sink! Andrews sternly replies, She is made of iron, sir. I assure you she can and she will. It is a mathematical certainty.
Titanic sank because of the Archimedes principle, namely that a vessel will float so long as it displaces more water than its own weight. Once five compartments of the ship were breached, it displaced less water and accordingly was doomed to sink like a stone.
Similarly, the electorate works on pure mathematics. Whatever happens in a particular seat, there is an underlying current created by the national trend. The Libs remain able to hold enough seats to resist this trend as long as the ALP vote does not go over about 52.5%. Once it does, the wheels fall off very quickly. The strategy Howard has been running with targeted marginal seat intervention could be called the four bulkhead strategy - to protect the last compartment before the ship sinks. It almost looks like they're going for the lifeboat strategy in NSW.
John Clarke & Bryan Dawe certainly think so - their hilarious take on the situation had the camera pitching at 45 degrees and the band played 'Nearer My God to Thee' (link soon as ABC oblige)
In fact the whole scenario reminds me of this exchange from James Cameron's Titanic:
enter Mr. Andrews, Titanic's designer with several ship drawings. He unfolds them on a table with great urgency. As Andrews explains the dire situation, Captain Smith asks eagerly about the pumps.
Andrews replies, From this moment, no matter what I do, Titanic will founder. Mr. Ismay, an executive with White Star Lines, says in disbelief, But this ship can't sink! Andrews sternly replies, She is made of iron, sir. I assure you she can and she will. It is a mathematical certainty.
Titanic sank because of the Archimedes principle, namely that a vessel will float so long as it displaces more water than its own weight. Once five compartments of the ship were breached, it displaced less water and accordingly was doomed to sink like a stone.
Similarly, the electorate works on pure mathematics. Whatever happens in a particular seat, there is an underlying current created by the national trend. The Libs remain able to hold enough seats to resist this trend as long as the ALP vote does not go over about 52.5%. Once it does, the wheels fall off very quickly. The strategy Howard has been running with targeted marginal seat intervention could be called the four bulkhead strategy - to protect the last compartment before the ship sinks. It almost looks like they're going for the lifeboat strategy in NSW.
John Clarke & Bryan Dawe certainly think so - their hilarious take on the situation had the camera pitching at 45 degrees and the band played 'Nearer My God to Thee' (link soon as ABC oblige)
Thursday, September 13, 2007
The Lemming Effect
In this slight void between entrail readings (sorry, opinion polls), a few brief musings on why the artist soon-to-be-formerly known as PM finds himself in near-terminal electoral trouble. I see I'm not the only one
who thinks that the Libs disintergration surpasses even the Swans' disintergration against Collingwood last week
who thinks that the Libs disintergration surpasses even the Swans' disintergration against Collingwood last week
The precipitous decline of the Libs from all-conquering, hubris-laden machine to cantankerous rabble can be traced to four key events:
1. Introduction of Work Choices
2. Rudd's election as leader - (yay! someone other than Beazley...)
3. Rudd's calm composure in the face of Howard's vitriolic attacks
4. The development of a self-perpetuating cycle of strong polls for Rudd and sense he will win (aka The Lemming Effect - i.e. that because everyone else is doing it, it's the right thing to do, in the manner lemmings are supposed to commit suicide en masse by jumping off cliffs)
The development of this cycle means that Rudd has the kind of support with the punters that Howard has owned for the past decade - namely that of the $1.15 million wagered on the election to date, 60% of that has been put on the ALP. The odds on Howard winning have nosedived - his chances of winning based on the punters' index are just 27%. The ALP's chances are officially better than Geelong's - and possibly just as epoch changing.
Following the conversion rate from Crikey's table...this means that the locked in vote for the ALP is about 54-46. Which means they've lost, and the next Newspoll will say about 60-40 to ALP, meaning it will all spark up again and look staggeringly incompetent. Mind you, if the reports that the Libs are running a 'firewall strategy' are correct, Howard is probably the best option to not lose by too much. Simply put, the Libs have to kick six goals in the last quarter and their supply into the forward line has been dreadful. They can either play safe and try not to get thrashed or go straight up the centre and take a few risks.
Running on their past record, the Libs were never going to win against a leader with a 60%+ approval rating. It means people are looking for more than the level of competence they have had. It also means that they fear that their protector is no longer suited to the current conditions, and hence they have no need for him. Or in the words of Governor Schwarzenegger 'goodbye little penguin'.
Interestingly, it seems that Howard either has conflicting polling or he just misled his party and gave it false hope to keep his job. Eden Monaro is apparently showing a swing of about 7% - on that tracking I've got it as an ALP gain by at least 0.7%, and if they win a semi-conservative retiree seat like that, there is a swing on that no amount of firewalling will defend.
I find it highly unlikely that Howard and friends will look credible for the following reasons:
1. Howard did not articulate a future agenda until 'five minutes to midnight'
2. Costello is now going to be treated like the Antipodean Gordon Brown. He isn't. According to AC Nielsen polls, Costello has an approval rating of 70% as treasurer, about 30% as PM. In the UK, the dynamic was completely different, Blair was seen as all spin, Brown a return to substance.
3. Putting Costello up as co-consul and the boy king changes the equation. Instead of Rudd being 'young Howard', Costello is 'mini-Rudd'. Why on earth would you vote for change by re-electing the aged leader on the promise of getting his cheap imitation unpopular successor. Costello is to Howard as Tiberius was to Augustus, the guy who'll probably have to take over as there are on other options.
4. According to the dark arts of Crosby Textor, the Libs only lead on the economy, interest rates, experience and something nebulous called 'heading in the right direction'. They've lost control of the intangibles such as preferred PM and hence they are defending the citadel, while most of their electoral territory is overrun with Rudd-ite raiding parties.
5. Howard's alternatives are to talk about the future - associated with Rudd; climate change + water - ALP issues.
Any excessively optimistic Libs or pessimistic ALP supporters feel free to comment : )
The Vision Thing
Welcome to my blog...for those who wander in, have a look around. I intend to offer my own unique brand of commentary on a variety of topics, most notably of a political or sporting bent. Feel free to comment - I am open to exchanging ideas and building consensus on issues that matter (and also fooling around on some that don't : ))
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)