I literally chocked on the Coke Zero I was drinking when I read this. Don’t have the direct link, but quoting from Trevor Cook:
If ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äù and it is a big if ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äù Labor were to secure the 58 per cent national two-party preferred vote suggested by the polls at the next election, my election calculator says Labor would win around 111 of the 150 seats.
Like hell Labor will win 111 seats out of 150.
Absolute BS.
Anyone stupid enough to believe that 58% 2pp applies to all seats equally should be shot…ok, maybe not shot, but they shouldn’t be making these sorts of predictions.
Do I believe that the swing is on. Yes. Do I believe that the final tally could be as big as 58% 2pp ALP across the country at the next election…well, maybe, it’s not unreasonable. But do I believe that it will be applied equally across all seats, that the Coalition will be all but wiped out: NO.
Word to the wise: swings are NEVER uniform. Firstly they tend to be bigger in the seats with the party on the positive side of the swing currently hold, ie: ALP seats will see huge swings to the ALP: you’ll see 10-15% margins blow out to 20-40% margins.
Polling currently also shows that the Coalition vote is still holding up in the West. 2.7% unemployment and AWA’s equaling huge pay packets for all does that.
I believe, after many years heavily involved in politics and the State and Federal level (now retired) that all politics is local, and literally the size of the swing will depend in large part on the local member. Yes, a good portion of people vote for the party and not the candidate, but good local members switch the equation to being more about them and not the party. People can and do vote candidate first, Senate voting paterns should be enough proof of that.
Here’s my prediction 6 months (or thereabouts) out: I’d say Labor by 10-15 seats (25-30 seat majority), maybe 85-90 max out of 150…there’s a high hope in hell that will see the ALP with 111 seats because simply, the swing wont be uniform, and it will be called on a seat by seat basis. Having said that it could be tighter, as much as I think the Government is on the nose (least thats the feedback I get from the punters) Howard is bound to be holding a rabbit in his hat, he always has before.
Duncan, the blogger who shouldn’t be an electoral pundit is you, not Trevor Cook. If Labor wins 58 per cent of the 2PP vote, they will in all likelihood win about 110 seats. The fact that swings are not uniform means that the number would just as likely be higher as lower. Your argument to the contrary – that swings “tend to be bigger in the seats with the party on the positive side of the swing currently hold” – is a piece of nonsense you have invented to support your pre-determined conclusion, apparently secure in the knowledge that no one would call you up on it. Unfortunately, I have crunched the numbers from the 1996 election at which the average swings were as follows:
Very strong ALP (16%+) 4.3%
Strong ALP (12-16%) 5.6%
Fairly strong ALP (8-12%) 6.1%
Weak ALP (4-8%) 5.2%
Very weak ALP (0-4%) 5.4%
Very weak LNP (0-4%) 5.3%
Weak LNP (4-8%) 5.5%
Fairly strong LNP (8-12%) 5.0%
Strong LNP (12-16%) 5.8%
Very strong LNP (16%+) 3.7%
As you can see, there is nothing here to support your theory, and no reason to think things will be different next time. Note also the 2002 Victorian election, when Labor indeed polled 58 per cent of the 2PP vote (57.8 per cent, to be precise) and won 62 out of 88 seats, or 70.5 per cent of the total – as they would almost certainly do if they polled that well at a federal election. To save you the effort, that works out to 106 seats in a house of 150.