Obligatory election prediction

Barring any game-changing developments, Labor will win. They were going to win with Rudd as leader anyway, but they’ll probably do slightly better with Gillard. The deposing of Rudd will not be a big factor by the end of the campaign. The myth that Labor saved Australia from recession will be commonly accepted by a majority, nullifying one of the Liberals’ traditional strengths. Gillard will maintain a just-to-the-left-of-the-Coalition stance on “border protection” that is sufficiently populist to appeal to enough voters. She won’t risk pissing off the committed conservative religious types by doing the right thing on gay marriage. Even though a clear majority of Australians support it, they mostly don’t consider it a key issue (unlike the fundies, a minority who might change their vote according to how politicians move on it). The resources tax has had much of its sting removed, and the media has certainly dropped it from their list of hot topics, though Twiggy and some others are worried about the possibility of an increase in Green representation in the Senate thanks to the preferences deal with Labor, and could prove a thorn in Gillard’s side.

Which brings me to the Greens. They will have an increased representation in the Senate thanks to the preferences deal with Labor. :-) They will not win any lower house seats. Their HoR vote will increase or decrease marginally, with no big swings.

The Liberals will gain some seats, especially in urban fringes. Abbott will eventually prove a liability as Labor’s attack ads sink into the public consciousness and his gaffes mount up, with some marginal seats falling to Labor. After campaigning hard on “stopping the boats”, which will be a vote-winner, the lack of other popular policies will be their downfall. Being deprived of their title as better economic managers, however spuriously, and a lack of fear-inducing events to bolster their security policies, will combine with a shortage of frontbenchers with a high enough level of perceived competence to ensure they lose.

Disclaimer: I have a terrible track record when it comes to predictions. Do not rely on this if you’re betting on the outcome.

This entry was posted in national and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Obligatory election prediction

  1. john walker says:

    my fearless prediction:
    two party something like- %52 labour , %48 libs
    But labour could have problems- It is unlikely to gain seats in NSW , SA and VIC, it is quite likely to lose seats in WA , Qld. The distribution of votes could be a bit of a ‘finesse’
    As for the greens interesting question , could be like the Liberals in the UK.
    As for balance of power are you sure that some too clever by half preference deal wont deliver a son of Steve ?

  2. john walker says:

    Actually I have never picked ,or even lucked a sweep, a winner in the Melbourne Cup.
    I live in Eden Monaro , a bell weather seat , Latest poll, this morning, is about 60- 40 to labor.
    Personally I might end up scrawling: ‘bring back Malcom on my ballot paper’.

    ‘Tis but a tale told by an idiot’

  3. john walker says:

    From the Greens arts policy release-
    ” Greens’ promise to strengthen the recently legislated Resale Royalty right scheme by applying it on all resales, ensuring easier international reciprocity. The Greens also promise to remove the ‘opt out’ provision which can be used to compromise the inalienability of the right.”

    Imposing Compulsory collective monopoly management and compulsory Usage on artists such as myself who want nothing to do with it and the retrospective voiding of sales contracts that were often made decades ago is the behavior of a authoritarian , lawless thug.
    Retrospective application is for me, morally – theft. If I was forced to collect the royalty, my personal beliefs would make me return all of the money (including the collection fee) to the person it had been stolen from.

    Viscopy suppressed a report, which it commissioned in 2004 from Access Economics, to model the likely impact of the scheme. In this report, Access Economics warned that the claim of net benefit to artists was: “based upon extremely unrealistic assumptions, in particular the assumption that seller and buyer behaviour would be completely unaffected by the introduction of RRR [ARR]” and that, “Access Economics considers that the results of this analysis are both unhelpful and potentially misleading.” I emphasise that this 2004 modelling was of the fully retrospective compulsory monopoly scheme as it was envisaged by Viscopy
    Access also warned that retrospectivity (without compensation) under Australia’s constitution was a big ask.
    Guy Pierce in the Monthly suggests that the Greens are moving towards some sort of left liberal, center position . What has He been smoking?
    I Know this is provably just smoke to lure some arts luvies votes… But.. Mate.

    1 -The Greens policy is for a very arbitrary imposition of a monopoly restriction of the terms of trade of ‘artists’. Guy is that your idea of center leftish liberal economics?

    2 The ability to waive individual Collections, on a case by case basis, is being seen as a saving grace of the scheme. Parents don’t have to collect on the resale of gifts that they make to their children- Artists don’t have to collect it in cases were the artist would in effect be charging herself the royalty or in other situations where it makes no economic sense. Guy Is ‘fathers knows best ‘ and ‘ Protector of Artists’ ons size fits all-your idea of the basis of free civil societies?

    The real reason for all this is back in London. Viscopys big sister DACS is involved in a push to get the UK scheme extended to Artists who have been dead for decades and thus get its hands on lots of management action. Most of Europe (And the UK )would like to wind the scheme back , not as DACS wants , wind it forward.

    They where expecting a useful precedent -the thoroughness of Australia’s ‘common law’ lawmaking and Constitution are well respected in the UK . So the Australian non retrospective and non compulsory scheme is a big problem – it has turned out to be a dangerous precedent .
    As I have said the greens are very similar to the aging arts luvies – patronisingly authoritarian , fond of huddling in circular groups talking amongst them selves; with little understanding of economic reality or anything else .
    A Quote from S J Gould on the way academic training was developing ,writen 15 years ago:
    ” I am worried that people with an inadequate knowledge of the history and literature of their culture will ultimately become entirely self-referential, like science fictions most telling symbol, the happy fool who lives in the one dimensional world of flatland, and thinks he knows everything because he forms his entire universe.”

  4. Looks like some reasonable predictions to me. I can’t be bothered double-guessing the bettering markets, but my analysis of those markets for Qld is here:


    Basically, a few extra seats for the LNP in Qld, but not enough to win government.

  5. john walker says:

    Betting is sort of becoming a neural network., no?

  6. Jarrah says:

    “Greens promise to strengthen the recently legislated Resale Royalty right scheme by applying it on all resales”


    Dammit. Basically their whole Arts section of policy is just pork-barrelling for their favoured demographics. As bad as Labor or the Liberals! I expect better.

  7. john walker says:

    The more important point is that retrospectivity, under the Australian constitution, is very tricky, in fact we almost never do it. And the Greens policy actually states that the reason for compulsory usage is in order to make the management, that is the collection agency, viable and well funded. A duty of payment of the management fees is a form of hypothecated tax. These types of privatised tax collection is simply not acceptable to Treasury – taxes and their collection are solely the business of the ATO.

    The Greens combine inflexibility with ignorance and a touch of a malice and superiority that is very unattractive. Their inability to bargain is very worrying. In a civil society the answer to questions of power is never absolute; it always depends on circumstances. Civil societies are based upon compromise and bargaining.

  8. Peter Patton says:

    Well Jarrah, today I put down $200 for an ALP win with a 12 seat majority.

  9. Jarrah says:

    12? What do you base that on?

  10. Peter Patton says:

    I have correctly guessed every federal election since 1998. I was wrong about 1996. I caused many of my friends to break out in hives when I called the Coalition would take both Houses in 2004, and that Maxine McKew would win Bennelong! :) I also announced three years ago that Julia Gillard would be the one to introduce vouchers into Australian schools, that she is not and never has been a socialist. Though similarly, I predict that a PM Abbott would be one of the most small-l liberal PMs we’ve had in a long time, and will rarely push anything like his hard-line catholic conservative agenda, he has been known for over the past decade or so. In fact, I predict he will be the one responsible for legally recognizing gay relationships through civil unions (but he will never support marriage). He will never take on the trade unions.

    One thing I always do is monitor coverage in The Oz, which influences the blogosphere so disproportionately. I discount that entire coverage, except adding 10% of the negativity to the party they were not backing.

    I don’t know how you could ever measure it, but I have – another – hunch that in the 12 months leading up to a federal election, The Oz is light years out of touch from hoi polloi (abt. 90% of the population ) who simply never see a copy of it, and would have no idea who Janet Albrechtsen or Peter Switzer are. That was why Howard was so successful. After door knocking since the 1960s, he twigged to this, and so started talking over the elite [luvvie] media, which said luvvies denigrated as “dog whistling.”

    I also have a coterie (extended family, acquaintances, friends) of somewhere between 20 to 50 people (of different degrees of closeness), whom I try to keep up to pick up the ebb and flow of how their minds are ticking with the ebb and flow of politics. The data is invaluable.

    Julia Gillard is John Howard, Margaret Thatcher’s, and Bob Hwake’s Frankenstein. Her unexpected rise to PM, was a bit before she was ready, but she’s there now, and will have to fight for her life, but she will PM in September, and her Party will govern in its own right.

  11. john walker says:

    I agree, –though I would guess a 8 seat majority.

    Ps Jarrah , politics has always been about handing out lollies to your mates.
    The British ‘liberal tradition’ beginning in Regency was all about frustrating and restricting the powerful.
    Burke’s approval of the American Revolution (and his rejection of the French) was because the Americans did it in a lawful way. The problem with too much unregulated liberty is that it will always end in a monopoly of power.

  12. Peter Patton says:


    Fortunately, the condition of our bet was that we first agreed to write our predictions on a piece of paper. If the result falls in between our predictions there is no pay out. I bet 12 or more. He bet Labor by 2 or less (which obviously includes a Coalition victory). So, for example, if Labor wins by 8, neither of us has to pay anything.

  13. john walker says:

    Can I have the ‘Dolly mixture’ ??

  14. john walker says:

    The latest poll is 52% – 48% , which has been the long term median.
    Do you remember the Lennon song line ” there is always something cooking , but there is nothing in the pot”

  15. john walker says:

    I live in Eden Monaro, a bellwether seat.
    Purely subjective- but I feel that quite a few have really not made up their minds, at all .
    It is easy to forget that Mr Abbot only got the leadership by one vote (and one person was off sick that day) .
    Quite a few acquaintances have said that they are going to put blank papers into the box

    The Wedging of the liberals that resulted in Mr Abbots election to leadership might prove to be as damaging to the Libs long term election chances as the 1950s split was to the Labor party.
    The greens could deny government to the Libs for a long time to come ,on the basis that the Libs are dominated by ‘Trollish’ ideologues of the right.

    tltimately the secret to de-fanging the DLP and making Labor electable was- ruthlessly take out the Victorian hard ideological left, -this was about the very first thing that Gough did.

  16. Pingback: Told you I wasn’t any good at this | Jarrah Job

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *