Liberal right's obsession deprives Baillieu of oxygen

FORMER New Zealand prime minister Mike Moore summed it up nicely. In politics, he said, your opponents sit on the other side of the chamber. Your enemies sit on your own.

Ted Baillieu knows what he means. In recent days, his attempt to get his message out to Victorian voters about what changes a Coalition government would make have been drowned out by factional opponents beating their drum to insist that the Liberals should not direct preferences to the Greens.

Senator Helen Kroger, former Victorian party president, wrote in the Herald Sun that a preference deal with the Greens would be "dealing with an organisation that is fundamentally opposed to Liberal beliefs . . . Their agenda begins with extolling euthanasia and goes on to death duties, gay marriage, increasing taxes, carbon or otherwise, and ripping government funding from private schools. What's next? Legalising drugs and heroin injecting rooms?"

John Howard said the Liberal Party should think carefully before giving preferences to the Greens, declaring: "The Greens are fundamentally anti-free enterprise." Lesser lights, too, had a go, suggesting that Liberals preferencing the Greens ahead of Labor would leave voters confused about what the party stood for.

Great fun for all! The rest of us might think that for these Liberals, the worst election result would be one in which Baillieu becomes premier, and takes the Liberals back towards the political centre.

Let's be clear. There are four seats Brunswick, Melbourne, Northcote and Richmond where the Liberals will come third. Their preferences could decide whether the seat goes to Labor or the Greens. They have no third choice.

Ideologically, the Liberals and Labor are closer to each other than either is to the Greens. That's even more true in state politics, which is essentially about providing services. It's particularly so when the rivals Baillieu and John Brumby are former classmates. Both are pro-business, socially progressive middle-of-the-roaders who just happen to be in different parties.

But they are opponents, whereas the Greens are a marginal force outside the inner suburbs. If the Liberals preference Labor, they will ensure it wins those four seats, freeing it to focus its resources instead on the seats where it is fighting the Liberals. If they give preferences to the Greens, they force Labor to fight on two fronts and divide its energies. Which would you choose?

With one exception, the Liberals have always chosen to give preferences to the Greens, so Labor has to fight on two fronts.

Howard was Liberal leader at the 1996, 1998, 2001, 2004 and 2007 federal elections. At all of them, on the mainland, the Liberals gave preferences to the Greens. They did so also at the 2010 federal election, without anyone mistaking Tony Abbott for a Green.

The exception is Tasmania, which gives us a controlled trial for the Kroger view. Tasmania went to the polls in March. The Liberals topped the vote, but both sides ended up with 10 seats and the Greens with five. Liberal leader Will Hodgman had first rights but, under pressure from right-wing powerbroker Senator Eric Abetz, refused to negotiate with the Greens. Labor leader David Bartlett went ahead and did so. So Labor and the Greens now have a coalition government, and it's working well.

The federal election saw the Liberal vote in Tasmania slump to 39 per cent after preferences the party's lowest vote in any state since World War II. Opinion polls show a collapse in Liberal support at state level. And The Mercury reports that Hodgman has now taken on Abetz for control of the party, declaring: "We cannot give away the middle ground. I will fight to make sure that doesn't happen, even if it costs me my job."

That's option B for the Victorian Liberals. All those in favour?

Baillieu has problems enough fighting an opponent like Brumby, who is the embodiment of pragmatism. The Premier is like a grand prix driver in pole position, and Baillieu has to find a way to overtake him. But every time he gets momentum on an issue, Brumby just slides across to block his way. Increase police numbers? Sure, says Brumby,

I'll do that. An anti-corruption commission? Yep, says Brumby, that's my policy now.

Has there ever been a government so assiduous at wooing interest groups from all sides and trying to keep them in the tent? Victorian Labor is a government of professionals. It has a massive advantage of resources over its opponents. And it is ruthlessly pragmatic about giving the public what it wants.

The polls suggest the most likely outcome is that Labor will get back with a reduced majority. The next most likely is some form of coalition between Labor and the Greens. The next most likely is a Coalition government in some form, either alone or through a deal with the Greens.

That's unlikely, but is it impossible? At this point, maybe. Yet the Greens are a work in progress, moderating as they come closer to power. In Germany, the state of Hamburg is now run by a "black-green" alliance of Christian Democrats and Greens, and Saarland by a "Jamaica alliance" (black-yellow-green) with the free-market Free Democrats as well. Don't knock it till you've tried it.

I don't have a dog in this race, but I would like to see Victorians have a choice. Could the Liberal right please get out of the way and let Ted Baillieu offer us one?

Read more >>

State swing may save Labor vote

A SWING to Labor in Victoria could make it the state that saves Labor from defeat in today's election but an unpredictable hung Parliament remains as a strong possibility, the Age/Nielsen poll reveals.

A state breakdown of the five polls taken through the campaign show Victoria and Tasmania are the only states in which Labor is likely to gain ground today.

But the final poll, which had a larger sample and was taken in the final nights of the campaign, confirms earlier polling showing sizeable swings of around 3 per cent against Labor in the crucial states of NSW and Queensland, and 4 per cent in Western Australia.

If those swings were evenly distributed across each state which they never are, but it's not a bad guide the Coalition would gain 15 seats from Labor: seven in NSW, six in Queensland and two in WA.

The Northern Territory is not polled separately in our poll due to its small population, but the Darwin seat of Solomon (which Labor holds by 0.2 per cent) normally reflects any national swing.

But Victoria is heading the other way. Polling of 187o Victorian voters over the five weeks of the campaign found an average swing of 2 per cent, which strengthened over the campaign.

Assuming a uniform swing, that would see Labor take McEwen and La Trobe from the Coalition, although any other seats appear out of range.

On the other hand, the average of the polls shows the Greens vote soaring in Victoria from 8 per cent in 2007 to 15 per cent this time, while Labor's vote has fallen from 45 per cent to 42 per cent. On those figures, the Greens would take Melbourne from Labor.

A small sample averaged over the past two months also shows a 2 per cent swing to Labor in Tasmania, but it already holds all five seats there. In South Australia, there has been a 1 per cent swing to the Coalition over the campaign, but no Labor seats are within range.

Labor starts with a total of 88 seats in the 150-member House: the 83 it won in 2007, plus five net gains from the redistribution. If it loses a net 13 seats, it would lose its majority. If the Coalition gains a net 17 seats, it would gain a majority.

If you take an average of all five polls, we are probably heading for a hung Parliament, with the independents deciding who rules us. If you look at just the last three polls, Labor would get back with a reduced majority.

In the past, an average of all polls over the campaign has been a good guide to the outcome. But maybe not this time, when the Rudd leaks dominated the second and third weeks. Labor's vote was high at the start, low in the middle, and high at the end.

Were all five polls an equally good guide to the result? Or were the last two polls the ones that mattered? We will find out tonight.

Read more >>

Cliffhanger - bookies give Labor slim lead

THE bookies still say it's Labor but only just. And despite appearances, the polls are converging, and pointing towards a cliffhanger result in Saturday's election.

A new Morgan poll, a very interesting Tasmanian poll for Launceston's daily, The Examiner, and a brace of polls in marginal seats published at the weekend all imply that Labor leads narrowly.

But the swings to the Coalition in Queensland and New South Wales states where Labor has 22 marginal seats to defend could see the Liberals make enough gains to force a hung parliament, or even snatch victory despite Labor winning more votes.

The Examiner poll added its spice to the mix showing the Liberals are polling so badly in Tasmania that the Greens have a chance of overtaking them and winning Hobart's two seats, Denison and Franklin, off Labor, on Liberal preferences.

The bottom line is that the election remains very open. All the polls agree that Labor is gaining ground in Victoria, putting Liberal MP Jason Wood at risk in La Trobe. But the Coalition is making gains in NSW, Queensland and WA, while South Australia is reporting no change.

The outcome will be decided in the campaign's final week and a hung parliament, with Greens and independents holding the balance of power, is a strong possibility.

That is not how the bookies see it. They still have Labor firming even though its majority would be reduced to just four seats.

Last night the four online bookies Betfair, Centrebet, Sportbet and Sportingbet on average were offering $1.31 for a dollar punted on a Labor win, and $3.58 on the Coalition.

But Centrebet and Sportsbet agree that Labor is likely to lose 11 of its notional 88 seats going into the election including five of the six seats that the redistribution notionally shifted from the Coalition to Labor. It would gain just one seat McEwen, on Melbourne's north-east fringe but lose Melbourne to the Greens.

If the punters are right, Labor's majority would be cut to four seats in the new Parliament. Labor would have 77 seats, the Coalition 69, independents three and Greens one. But two of Labor's seats are seen as virtually lineball: Lindsay in Sydney's outer west, and Darwin's seat of Solomon. If it loses them, it loses its majority.

Conversely, the bookies think Labor still has a decent outside chance of taking Hughes (NSW) from the Coalition, retaining Hasluck (WA), and holding the Mackay seat of Dawson, where the Liberals' George Christensen has been damaged by the publication of undergraduate writings in which he declared women "stupid".

Yesterday's Galaxy poll was reported as showing the Coalition ahead by 51.4 per cent to 48.6. In fact, that was just the outcome in the 20 marginal seats polled.

On average, it found a swing to the Coalition of 1.6 per cent, implying that if its choice of seats was representative Labor leads 51-49 nationwide.

But its four Queensland seats showed a 5.4 per cent swing to the Coalition, which it translated as a gain of 10 seats. In NSW it found a 2.4 per cent swing (seven seats) and in WA a 2.1 per cent swing (two seats). While Labor would claw two seats back in Victoria (McEwen and La Trobe), this would give the Coalition a bare majority in its own right.

Of course, statewide swings are not uniform, and the Coalition would need a lot of luck to win 17 seats on a swing of just 1.6 per cent.

A separate sample of marginal seats last week by Newspoll closely resembled Saturday's Age/Nielsen poll, which found Labor ahead by a 53-47 margin with a strong swing to the government in Victoria offset by smaller swings against it in NSW, Queensland and WA. Victoria does matter. As does Tasmania. A poll of 1000 Tasmanian voters late last week for The Examiner found Labor with a massive 60 per cent of the two-party vote. But while it was in no danger of losing any seats to the Liberals, it is at risk of losing the two Hobart seats to the Greens, on Liberal preferences.


WHAT THE POLLS SHOW

AGE/NIELSEN

Labor 53%

Coalition 47%

Swings against Labor in NSW, Queensland and WA put it at risk.

MORGAN

Labor 51%

Coalition 49%

Forecasts hung Parliament.

Labor losses in NSW, Queensland and WA.

GALAXY

In 20 marginal seats, swings averaging 1.6% to Coalition. Big losses in Queensland and NSW could see hung Parliament or Coalition win.

NEWSPOLL

Marginal-seat survey finds big swing to Labor in Victoria, smaller swings against it in NSW and Queensland. Implies Labor win with reduced majority.

EXAMINER

Tasmanian poll finds Coalition doing badly, Labor at risk of losing two seats to Greens.

Read more >>

Labor claws back but too close to call

LABOR is clawing its way back. But a state breakdown of the four Age/Nielsen polls suggests the Coalition still has a fighting chance of winning the 17 seats it needs to win government.

Look at where each state is heading, and the possibility of a hung Parliament might be a bit higher than the 5-1 odds online bookie Sportsbet was offering yesterday.

Today's poll shows Labor back roughly where it was at the start of the campaign. The online bookies agree. Last night the four of them Sportsbet, Sportingbet, Centrebet and Betfair had a winning bet on Labor paying between $1.32 and $1.40, while the Coalition has drifted to between $3 and $3.35.

But the big question is whether the Coalition's lead in the previous two polls was just a fleeting reaction by voters to the Rudd leaks or whether the Coalition's support is stronger than these figures suggest.

Nielsen is the only pollster that has called the result correctly at the past four Federal elections. But each poll samples only about 1400 voters, and the margin of error in such a survey is 2.7 per cent either way.

Past elections have shown that the average of polls taken over the campaign is a pretty good guide to the outcome especially at state level, where it is the only way to compile a sample of reliable size.

Their findings this time can be summarised very simply. Labor is gaining ground from the Coalition in Victoria but losing ground to the Greens. South Australia is showing no overall movement either way.

But in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia, the Coalition is heading for significant gains. And the first two are the states that will decide this election.

In Victoria, the bookies see only two seats changing hands: Labor taking McEwen from the Liberals, and the Greens taking Melbourne from Labor. But with our poll finding a swing of up to 2 per cent to Labor in the state, the close one could be La Trobe, where Liberal MP Jason Wood last won by just 0.5 per cent.

It's a different story across the Murray. While Labor still has a narrow lead in NSW, the polls show a swing of up to 3 per cent to the Coalition since 2007 and seven Labor seats are within reach of that. This week Labor picked up some ground in Queensland, but even so, our surveys are pointing to a swing of 3 per cent or more with up to six Labor seats directly in line.

And in WA, our surveys suggest the Coalition still has a commanding lead, giving it a strong chance of picking up two seats that are notionally on the Labor side.

Throw in the Darwin seat of Solomon, which is always lineball, and the certainty of above-average swings in some seats, and this election is still open.


HOW THE STATES WOULD VOTE

Average of last four Age/Nielsen polls

NSW Vic Qld WA* SA/NT* Aust

First preferences % % % % % %

Labor 39 42 35 33 41 39

Coalition 43 39 46 51 40 43

Greens 12 14 11 11 11 13

Others 7 4 8 4 7 6

Two-party preferred

Labor 51 56 47 44 53 51

Coalition 49 44 53 56 47 49

Swing to Coalition 3 -2 3 3 0 2

SOURCE: FOUR AGE/NIELSEN POLLS SURVEYING 5471 VOTERS DURING ELECTION CAMPAIGN.

* SA AND WA INCLUDES ALL FIVE POLLS SINCE EARLY JULY

Read more >>

Libs may win with fewer votes

THE Coalition is on track to reap big swings in the crucial states of NSW and Queensland, which would return it to power even if Labor won most votes, the Age/Nielsen poll reveals.

A state breakdown of three polls taken since the campaign began shows that while Labor averaged a 51-49 lead nationally, the biggest swings against it are in two states where it has two-thirds of its marginal seats.

If one assumes a uniform swing within each state, the Coalition is on track to win back government on Saturday week, with a small majority in its own right.

It would have a larger majority if Australians vote on August 21 as they have in the past two polls. Both found the Coalition with an election-winning lead, nationally and in two of the three largest states.

The three polls, which surveyed 4073 people between July 20 and August 5, found no swing to either side in Victoria. In this state, voters at this stage appear set to repeat the 2007 outcome.

But the polls reveal:

A 3 per cent swing to the Coalition in NSW, which on a uniform swing would give it seven gains: Robertson (where it needs a swing of just 0.1 per cent), Macquarie (0.3), Gilmore (0.4), Macarthur (0.5), the battle of the stars in Bennelong (1.4), the litmus seat of Eden-Monaro (2.3) and Page (2.4).

A swing of more than 4 per cent to the Coalition in Queensland, costing Labor up to nine seats: Herbert (0.0), Dickson (0.8), Longman (1.9), Flynn (2.2), Dawson (2.6), Forde (3.4) and possibly Leichhardt (4.1), Petrie (4.2) and Bonner (4.5).

A 2 per cent swing in Western Australia, which could give the Coalition two more seats: Swan (0.3) and Hasluck (0.9).

A 1 per cent swing in South Australia and the Northern Territory, which could see the Coalition take back the Darwin seat of Solomon (0.2).

Add that up, and the Coalition is heading for a small majority even if Labor regains some ground in the final fortnight of the campaign.

The three-poll average has Labor ahead by 54-46 in Victoria and 51-49 in NSW, and the Coalition ahead 54-46 in Queensland.

For SA and WA, a five-poll average shows Labor ahead 52-48 in SA and the Coalition up 55-45 in WA.

On the new boundaries, Labor holds 88 seats, the Coalition 59 and independents 3.

If Labor loses 13 seats, it loses its majority. If the Coalition gains 17 or more seats, it will have a majority.

Anything in between that would result in a hung parliament.

The Age/Nielsen poll results are broadly in line with those of other established pollsters, whose latest polls show a 50-50 outcome.

But because of the swings in NSW and Queensland, and because Labor has more voters cooped up in safe seats, a 50-50 vote is likely to see the Coalition win most of the seats.

The latest Westpoll, published in Saturday's West Australian, goes against the trend. On a much larger sample of WA voters, it reports a 2 per cent swing there to Labor.

All four online bookmakers Centrebet, Sportsbet, Sportingbet and Betfair still have Labor as favourite, but the Coalition's odds are shortening rapidly. On average, the online bookmakers yesterday were offering $1.625 for a winning $1 bet on Labor, and $2.34 on the Coalition having tightened from $1.54 and $2.54 respectively on Friday.


HOW THE STATES WOULD VOTE

AVERAGE OF PAST THREE AGE/NIELSEN POLLS

NSW Vic Qld WA* SA/NT* Australia

FIRST PREFERENCES

Labor 39 41 33 35 42 38

Coalition 43 40 45 51 42 43

Greens 12 15 12 10 10 13

Others 6 4 10 4 7 6

TWO-PARTY PREFERRED

Labor 51 54 46 45 52 51

Coalition 49 46 54 55 48 49

Swing to Coalition 3 0 4 2 1 2

Read more >>

Gillard the favourite by a nose

AUSTRALIA'S punters are putting their money on Julia Gillard. They see Labor as on track to scrape back into office with its majority cut to six or eight seats, online bookies' odds reveal.

Despite recent polls showing the Coalition either leading or on level pegging, all four online bookmakers BetFair, Centrebet, Sportingbet and Sportsbet all still have Labor as the clear favourite to win re-election.

Yesterday, a dollar punted on a Labor win would earn you between $1.50 and $1.56 from different bookies if you were right. A dollar punted on the Coalition would reap you between $2.45 and $2.74 if they get home.

Those odds are much closer than they were at the start of the campaign, when the few punters backing Tony Abbott were offered $4 if he became PM.

They are also a fair bit closer than the odds being offered for the coming Victorian election, in which John Brumby is hot favourite.

But Labor's overall lead is backed up in the odds being offered for individual seats. If the punters are right, only seven of the 150 seats are likely to change hands two of them in Victoria and Labor will return with a reduced majority.

It's a bit complex to explain, because the latest round of redistributions has made six Coalition seats notionally Labor. But the bookies expect that four of them, possibly five, will in fact stay with the Coalition.

They include Dickson (Qld), held by shadow health minister Peter Dutton, Herbert (Qld), Swan (WA), Gilmore (NSW) and possibly Macarthur (NSW).

Those seats aside, the bookies think the Coalition will pick up just five seats from Labor: Robertson, Belinda Neal's former seat, and Macquarie in NSW; and Dawson, Flynn and Leichhardt along the Queensland coast and mining towns.

Against that, the punters are betting the Coalition will lose Melbourne's north-east fringe seat of McEwen to Labor. Most of them rate Labor as being as likely to win McEwen as it is to win the election making it a good litmus test for Australia.

But all the bookies also have the Greens as clear favourites to win the seat of Melbourne from Labor. They are offering $1.60 to $1.67 for the Greens, and from $1.98 to $2.20 for Labor.

One or two bookies have the Coalition as narrow favourite or even-money chances to hold Macarthur and take Hasluck (WA) and Solomon (NT) from Labor, while Sportingbet has Labor as favourite to win Hughes (NSW) from the Liberals.

The net impact of all this is that they expect Labor to win 78 or 79 seats in the 150-member House giving it a majority of six or eight seats. The Coalition would win 67 or 68, the Greens one, and independents three.

But the bookies see five other Labor seats as pretty close, especially Corangamite (Victoria), where Centrebet, Sportsbet and Sportingbet all have Labor ahead by a nose.

Labor is seen as more certain to hold Deakin, its other marginal seat in Victoria. And vice versa; the bookies seem reasonably confident the Coalition will hold its other Victorian marginal seat, La Trobe.

Read more >>

You can't call the election on what's said in June

BEWARE the polls of June. Polling in June is a poor guide to who will win an election due at the end of the year.

In three of our past four election years, the party leading in the polls in June ended up losing the election later that year. And in every case, the victim was the (Labor) opposition.

In those four years, between our Age/Nielsen poll in June and the outcome on election day, on average the Howard government picked up 5.5 percentage points in support in two-party terms.

That's not the fault of our poll which is the only poll that has correctly called the winner of all four elections. (Remember the front page headlines in The Australian on election days? "Late surge to Beazley" it told us in 1998. In 2004 was: "Latham within striking distance".)

If the Rudd government matched the Howard government's average comeback between June and election day, it would wipe out the entire swing to the Coalition in yesterday's poll, and we would end up exactly where we started.

Whether it will or not is another matter. The government's support has been in free fall since Tony Abbott became Opposition Leader. But precisely because Abbott has been so much the Opposition Leader rather than an alternative prime minister, it's a long way to polling day.

It's too early to call the outcome and history backs the bookies' call in making Kevin Rudd the favourite.

Remember 1998? John Howard had gone back on his "never, ever" pledge to commit to a GST. We didn't like it. And there was an election looming.

In June 1998, Labor under Kim Beazley had a commanding 56-44 lead in our poll (and similar leads in other polls).

The Howard government looked like a one-term government with an unsaleable tax. Yet it stuck to its guns, suffered big swings, but it won the marginal seats, and a second term.

In 2001, the GST's debut had led to a spending strike that sent unemployment rising and confidence plunging. The Howard government looked in even worse trouble than in 2001. In the post-budget poll, Labor led 57-43. Beazley looked home.

Then the economy began picking up. Howard told the patrol boats not to let refugee boats land, but take them to Pacific islands. And al-Qaeda attacked the Twin Towers. By September 12, the election was all over.

Then came 2004, and Mark Latham.

We liked him at first, and Labor soared in the polls. It led 56-44 in May, 52-48 in June, the same in July and 53-47 as late as August. But armed with focus group research, John Howard knew something we didn't. He brought on the campaign and boldly declared the issue was trust. He was right: we didn't trust Latham. The government romped home.

What made 2007 different was Kevin Rudd. As usual, Labor led 57-43 at this stage. But Rudd effectively narrowed the issues to WorkChoices and climate change and gave the Coalition nothing to attack. Even so, that big lead in June shrank to 52.7-47.3 by election day.

None of this means that Rudd will be able to turn it around this time. But it means the election is open, and it's in front of us, not behind us.

Read more >>