EMRS Lib 50 ALP 23 Green 17 PUP 5 Ind 4
Interpretation (provisional): Lib 50 ALP 26 Green 15 PUP 6 Others 3
Outcome if election held now: Liberal Majority Win (approx 14-7-4)
The February EMRS poll is out (PDF Link) and shows no significant change from the poll released late last year, as can also be seen on the trend tracker. The Liberals and Labor are up one point each on the headline measure with the Greens down two. The number of respondents initially claiming to be undecided did rise sharply from 17% in the previous poll to 23% in this one, but once those respondents were prodded for a response, the true undecided rate comparable to that polled by other pollsters rose only three points from 10% to 13%. So let's please not have too much nonsense about almost a quarter of the voters being "undecided".
EMRS have a history of underestimating the Labor vote and overestimating the Green vote at elections, while their final result for the Liberals was very accurate last election. Based on this poll, if an election was held now the Liberals would certainly win outright and would be likely to win around 14 seats. I initially thought the Greens' support base was only enough for three but I now think a 15% result would probably just get them four (as a 16%-ish result did in 2006, by a whisker). There's not much in it though and it would come down to the breakup of votes between different parties in different electorates.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Griffith: Sound And Fury, Signifying Little
(With federal polling comments added Feb 11)
Of all the comments about the result of yesterday's Griffith by-election (won by Labor's Terri Butler but with a small swing to the Coalition) the one I liked best was the comment by Antony Green - that we would probably talk about the result for a day and then move on. It might be just a bit longer than that, but in case it isn't, today's that day and here's my contribution.
By-elections are noted for often producing crazy swings and aberrantly strong results for minor-party candidates but this one is notable for the modest nature of all the party swings. Not a single party contesting the election saw a swing exceeding 2% in either direction in its primary vote. The LNP has currently gained 1.35% (although I expect this figure to increase slightly), Labor has currently lost 1.38% (this may also increase) and the Greens have currently gained 0.01% (this could become a small loss). These small swings are against the backdrop of a slight change in the opposing candidate mix - the Palmer United Party which polled over 3% in the general election did not contest, while the Pirate Party is sitting in fourth place on 1.55%, having not contested this (or any other lower house) seat at the general election. (A note in passing on the various fourth party attempts: while none were able to crack even 2%, it's interesting that the Pirates more than doubled their Senate vote from the same electorate last year while Katter's Australian Party could barely improve on theirs, even in the absence of Palmer United.)
Of all the comments about the result of yesterday's Griffith by-election (won by Labor's Terri Butler but with a small swing to the Coalition) the one I liked best was the comment by Antony Green - that we would probably talk about the result for a day and then move on. It might be just a bit longer than that, but in case it isn't, today's that day and here's my contribution.
By-elections are noted for often producing crazy swings and aberrantly strong results for minor-party candidates but this one is notable for the modest nature of all the party swings. Not a single party contesting the election saw a swing exceeding 2% in either direction in its primary vote. The LNP has currently gained 1.35% (although I expect this figure to increase slightly), Labor has currently lost 1.38% (this may also increase) and the Greens have currently gained 0.01% (this could become a small loss). These small swings are against the backdrop of a slight change in the opposing candidate mix - the Palmer United Party which polled over 3% in the general election did not contest, while the Pirate Party is sitting in fourth place on 1.55%, having not contested this (or any other lower house) seat at the general election. (A note in passing on the various fourth party attempts: while none were able to crack even 2%, it's interesting that the Pirates more than doubled their Senate vote from the same electorate last year while Katter's Australian Party could barely improve on theirs, even in the absence of Palmer United.)
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
PUP's "Internal Polling" Claims Are Ludicrous
 |
| Porcupine Fish Award for Ultra-Fishy Polling (image credit) |
Clive Palmer has claimed to have internal polling showing the Palmer United Party on track to win the Tasmanian election. The claim that PUP polling shows any such thing should not be taken even remotely seriously because:
1. The level of detail concerning this "poll" that has been released is grossly inadequate.
2. The poll was not carried out by a neutral polling firm or even one with any demonstrated record of competence.
3. Many Palmer United "internal polling" claims in the leadup to the federal election were shown to be wildly excessive by the actual results.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Libs' ReachTEL: Not Completely Over The Line
Liberal-Commissioned ReachTEL: Lib 48.8 ALP 25.8 Green 15.3 PUP 4.8 Nat 0.7 Other 4.6
Outcome based on this poll if election held now: Probable Liberal Majority Win (13-14 seats)
(Note added 15 Feb: While this poll was interesting at the time in apparently showing the Liberals in a not clearly winning position (adjusted for apparent house effects) I now have reason to doubt the adjustments and to suspect that this poll should in fact be taken on face value or nearly so.)
===========================================================
The first thing to bear in mind when considering the Liberal Party commissioned ReachTEL that was released in the Mercury today is that it is a party-commissioned poll, and all party-commissioned polls should be treated with some caution, since parties only release them when it suits their purposes to do so. You can bet your proverbial bottom dollar that if this poll had shown the Liberals on 37%, Labor on 35 and PUP and the Greens on 14% each, it would have been rapidly buried under a bush somewhere. Likewise a poll showing the Liberals on, say, 57%, would have been a risky thing to release, because it might have caused voters who were wary of the Liberals but wanted majority government to believe the latter was in the bag and therefore there was no need to vote Liberal. Robopolls are less expensive than operator dialling and this has led to a flood of internal polling in elections since they became commonplace.
Outcome based on this poll if election held now: Probable Liberal Majority Win (13-14 seats)
(Note added 15 Feb: While this poll was interesting at the time in apparently showing the Liberals in a not clearly winning position (adjusted for apparent house effects) I now have reason to doubt the adjustments and to suspect that this poll should in fact be taken on face value or nearly so.)
===========================================================
The first thing to bear in mind when considering the Liberal Party commissioned ReachTEL that was released in the Mercury today is that it is a party-commissioned poll, and all party-commissioned polls should be treated with some caution, since parties only release them when it suits their purposes to do so. You can bet your proverbial bottom dollar that if this poll had shown the Liberals on 37%, Labor on 35 and PUP and the Greens on 14% each, it would have been rapidly buried under a bush somewhere. Likewise a poll showing the Liberals on, say, 57%, would have been a risky thing to release, because it might have caused voters who were wary of the Liberals but wanted majority government to believe the latter was in the bag and therefore there was no need to vote Liberal. Robopolls are less expensive than operator dialling and this has led to a flood of internal polling in elections since they became commonplace.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
The Unusual World Of PUP's Mark Grewar
 |
| Please explain! |
(Note: Some additional items have been added through this article since it was first released.)
Running a large slate of candidates in a state election from scratch is never easy. When the Palmer United Party (PUP) decided to run a full slate at this year's state election, I wondered who they might find to fill all the spots, having fielded only seven candidates in the state at the federal election. When I saw PUP's Tasmanian Senator-elect Jacqui Lambie stating that she had 22 "really good" candidates ready to roll but had held back another seven I started to wonder what might be to come.
Friday, January 24, 2014
Andrews' Phantom Welfare Spending Crisis
Advance Summary
1. An "unsustainable" level of welfare spending has been asserted by Human Services Minister, Kevin Andrews, in flagging a review of the system.
2. However, the number of people on welfare has not increased over the past decade when it is measured on a per capita basis rather than in raw-number terms.
3. Furthermore, when the age pension is excluded the proportion of people receiving welfare payments was consistently lower under Labor than in most of the second half of the Howard Coalition government.
4. Recent increases in the number of people receiving Newstart are explained largely by classification changes through the forcing of parents off parenting benefits, and increased unemployment.
5. While it would be more productive to investigate other areas of the welfare system, unemployment and disability benefits are a more politically convenient target.
6. Any investigation of whether "perverse incentives" are encouraging potential jobseekers to apply for disability support instead should consider whether the conditions under which Newstart allowance is made available, rather than just the disparity in payment amounts, might contribute to the problem (if it even exists.)
1. An "unsustainable" level of welfare spending has been asserted by Human Services Minister, Kevin Andrews, in flagging a review of the system.
2. However, the number of people on welfare has not increased over the past decade when it is measured on a per capita basis rather than in raw-number terms.
3. Furthermore, when the age pension is excluded the proportion of people receiving welfare payments was consistently lower under Labor than in most of the second half of the Howard Coalition government.
4. Recent increases in the number of people receiving Newstart are explained largely by classification changes through the forcing of parents off parenting benefits, and increased unemployment.
5. While it would be more productive to investigate other areas of the welfare system, unemployment and disability benefits are a more politically convenient target.
6. Any investigation of whether "perverse incentives" are encouraging potential jobseekers to apply for disability support instead should consider whether the conditions under which Newstart allowance is made available, rather than just the disparity in payment amounts, might contribute to the problem (if it even exists.)
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
2014 Tasmanian State Election Guide And Candidate List
POST-ELECTION NOTE: The election has been run and won by the Liberal Party. Check the sidebar for links to post-count threads for specific electorates (updated nightly.)
=======================================================================
The time has come to put up some general Tasmanian State Election content on this site. This page will serve as the "hub" page for my state election coverage and will contain general big-picture stuff, lists of candidates and links to all the specialised articles. It will be updated very frequently. Most likely each poll will have its own article and there will be separate articles for detailed projections. Links to articles will appear in the space below.
=======================================================================
The time has come to put up some general Tasmanian State Election content on this site. This page will serve as the "hub" page for my state election coverage and will contain general big-picture stuff, lists of candidates and links to all the specialised articles. It will be updated very frequently. Most likely each poll will have its own article and there will be separate articles for detailed projections. Links to articles will appear in the space below.
Friday, January 10, 2014
Wrong In Both Directions: Richo On Labor's Chances
Advance Summary
1. An article by Graham Richardson in The Australian argues that Labor has no real chance of winning the next election because the swing required to win on the Mackerras Pendulum is too large.
2. However, the comparisons Richardson makes disregard the relationship between a prior election result and the swing to (or against) Labor at the next election.
3. Indeed there is actually little if any historic relationship between the 2PP result at one federal election and the next.
4. Considering only the problem of gaining a swing of the size suggested by the pendulum, electoral history gives Labor a substantial (28%) chance of winning.
5. However this chance may be reduced if swings against first-term governments are usually smaller than a given base vote implies.
6. Furthermore, because Richardson relies on the Mackerras Pendulum, which is not adjusted for the personal votes of new sitting members, the target swing for Labor is probably higher than he thinks it is, and this reduces Labor's chances.
7. While it is therefore unlikely on paper that Labor will win the next election, it is unrealistic to assess it as a "virtually impossible" event on the basis of past electoral data.
=====================================================================
1. An article by Graham Richardson in The Australian argues that Labor has no real chance of winning the next election because the swing required to win on the Mackerras Pendulum is too large.
2. However, the comparisons Richardson makes disregard the relationship between a prior election result and the swing to (or against) Labor at the next election.
3. Indeed there is actually little if any historic relationship between the 2PP result at one federal election and the next.
4. Considering only the problem of gaining a swing of the size suggested by the pendulum, electoral history gives Labor a substantial (28%) chance of winning.
5. However this chance may be reduced if swings against first-term governments are usually smaller than a given base vote implies.
6. Furthermore, because Richardson relies on the Mackerras Pendulum, which is not adjusted for the personal votes of new sitting members, the target swing for Labor is probably higher than he thinks it is, and this reduces Labor's chances.
7. While it is therefore unlikely on paper that Labor will win the next election, it is unrealistic to assess it as a "virtually impossible" event on the basis of past electoral data.
=====================================================================
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
2013 Ehrlich Award For Wrong Predictions
Not much going on in the world of pseph with all the polls still asleep (though Morgan is showing some signs of waking up soon) so not much to report lately. I am hoping to soon publish a review of Cory Bernardi's oxymoronically-titled "The Conservative Revolution" but this depends on me being able to obtain a copy without paying for it. (If any readers can help out with this, that would be great. I promise to take appropriate medical precautions prior to opening its pages.)
===================================================================
This article unveils the second annual Ehrlich Award, which at or about the start of each year will be given to the "wrongest" published prediction I observe relating to (or made in) the previous calendar year.
There are a few groundrules - for instance the predictions need to be meaningful (in terms of being able to assess objectively whether they have happened), and secondly predictions that carry a stated assessment of chance of falsehood are not included unless that assessed chance is ludicrously low. After all, even odds-on favourites do get beaten sometimes.
===================================================================
This article unveils the second annual Ehrlich Award, which at or about the start of each year will be given to the "wrongest" published prediction I observe relating to (or made in) the previous calendar year.
There are a few groundrules - for instance the predictions need to be meaningful (in terms of being able to assess objectively whether they have happened), and secondly predictions that carry a stated assessment of chance of falsehood are not included unless that assessed chance is ludicrously low. After all, even odds-on favourites do get beaten sometimes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)