The Australian Electoral Commission has finalised the last of its two-party preferred Labor-versus Coalition counts, and it confirms Labor has won a narrow victory on the national total of 6,216,439 (50.12 per cent) to 6,185,949 (49.88 per cent), a margin of 30,490. If distinctions to the second decimal place are what matters to you, Labor did about 0.05 per cent worse than last time due to the arbitrary fact of the Nationals finishing ahead of Wilson Tuckey in O’Connor, meaning the AEC finalised a two-party result on a Nationals-versus-Labor basis where the 2007 Liberal-versus-Labor result was more favourable to them. So while I think it reasonable to cite the published figure as the definitive national result, a slight discount should be factored in when considering the matter of the swing, which should properly be rounded to 2.5 per cent rather than 2.6 per cent.
Whatever the specifics, the result leaves quite a few people looking foolish:
Barnaby Joyce: “We’d won the two-party preferred vote by the time the independents made their decision.” (Lateline, 7/9).
Andrew Bolt: “Labor won fewer votes, fewer seats of its own and less of the two-party preferred vote.” (Herald Sun, 8/9).
Alan Jones: “Is it a healthy democracy when a party wins the majority of the two party preferred, wins the majority of the primary vote and wins more seats in the Parliament than the other party but the other party forms government?” (2GB, 8/9).
Sarah Martin: “Yesterday, Julia Gillard’s Labor Party won government despite losing the primary vote and the two-party-preferred vote, or securing a majority of seats.” (The Advertiser, 7/9).
Kerry Chikarovski: “The Coalition won the primary vote, they won the two-party preferred …” (The Drum, 7/9).
Lateline: “Labor loses two-party preferred vote” (report headline, 30/8).
Kenneth Wiltshire: “It is probable that the Coalition will win more third-party preferences.” (NB: This of course is absurd – Labor got 65 per cent of third party preferences, much as they always do – but I think we know what he’s trying to say.) (The Australian 6/9).
Lisa Wilkinson (to Wayne Swan): “Now, you won fewer primary votes, fewer two-party preferred votes and fewer seats.”
(Swan explains to her that she’s wrong.)
Wilkinson: “But in the end you got 49.9 per cent of the vote and the Opposition got 50.1.”
Swan: “No, I don’t think that’s … Lisa, that is not a final count.”
Wilkinson: “Well, that’s what the AEC is saying and that’s what Australia said at the polls.” (The Today Show, Nine Network, 9/9).
No doubt there were others.
Our troubles here began on August 30, when the AEC removed three electorates from the national total on the basis that the Labor-versus-Liberal counts there had been discontinued after election night, as it became apparent the Greens (in the case of Batman and Grayndler) or Andrew Wilkie (in the case of Denison) rather than the Liberals would face Labor at the final count. As three of the weakest seats in the land for the Liberals, these were by extension among the strongest seats for Labor in two-party terms. The resulting adjustment in Labor’s two-party vote from 50.4 per cent 50.0 per cent led to a great many uncomprehending reports of a “surge” to the Coalition, which had an added edge due to Julia Gillard’s post-election claim that Labor had, apparently, won the two-party vote. Those who wanted a clear and accurate exposition of the news had to ignore, say, The Australian, and look to an evidently more reliable source of information in Bob Brown, who explained the absence of eight electorates from the published result and correctly concluded: “If you look at the whole of Australia and you treat every seat equally, when you do that Labor’s ahead and is likely to keep that lead right the way through to the finishing pole.”
Antony Green defends journalists on the basis that they were within their rights to take an official AEC figure at face value, but I’m not so kind. Even if awareness of the missing electorates was too much to ask, those quoted above should at least have been aware that the count was incomplete. As it stands, we have a result that leaves those of us who had done the sums with exactly what we were expecting, and a lot of dopey pundits and dishonest politicians with egg on their faces.
UPDATE: Morgan has published results from a phone poll of 541 respondents conducted on Wednesday and Thursday evening which has Labor leading 52-48 on two-party preferred from primary votes of 35.5 per cent for Labor, 42.5 per cent for the Coalition and 15 per cent for the Greens. The margin of error on the poll is about 4.2 per cent.
UPDATE 2: As Peter Brent points out, the 52-48 result comes from the less reliable two-party measure based on respondent-allocated preferences – going on previous elections, which the most recent election has again vindicated as the superior method, Labor’s lead is only 50.5-49.5.
Some people here might be interested in this.
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2010/09/distortions-in-the-queensland-senate-count.html
ltep@144
It suggests to me that some people live in a bubble of Truthiness.
[This suggests (to me) either gross incompetence or deliberately deceptive handling of the figures.]
Sure you don’t mean lazy and underfunded?
Heard SHY this morning on the radio, spinning on about Labor and Liberal spin on asylum seekers. Apparently SHY thinks that all people who arrive by boat are bona fide asylum seekers who have been tortured and persecuted.
Which brings me to a question: How will people ‘own’ the various compromises that the new paradigm is going to generate? Will parties own just the bits they like, even if they have agreed to a whole compromise? Will they blame the other members of the compromise gang for the bad bits?
Will political sophisticates like SHY be able to say, “Our bits of the compromise deal are ‘a’ and ‘b’. They are real and good. The rest is bad and Labor will spin on and on about them.”
If Oakes gets to be Speaker, how much moolah will Jenkins forego?
Boerwar: $100k, about 8 extra high-paid staff, a full-time driver, a big plush office and a big fat entertainment allowance.
[If Oakes gets to be Speaker, how much moolah will Jenkins forego?]
about 100K per year I believe
JB
Mmmm. Could Jenkins decide enough is enough and offer to sit on the cross benches?
Subject to Labor governing effectively (big assumption I know 😆 )-
I predict that MT will loom over TA just the same as he did over Brendan Nelson.
I have heard Jenkins will be Whip if he doesnt become Speaker
Me on ABC Tasmania in a sec.
[William wasn’t J Gill just as foolish to claim the 2PP vote as a mandate on election night knowing full well it was a very very provisional count. One could easily say that it was her statement that started all the fuss. Perhaps you should add that to your list as well as the usual (mostly right of centre) suspects you pick on]
She was right, the Right were wrong. And it was Brandis and Minchin that started all the fuss.
I think if you asked Jenkins, he’d probably say he’d prefer a Labor govt to being speaker, if push came to shove.
Just read the transcript of Robb on The World Today re: costings leak.
[ALEXANDRA KIRK: Do you believe that this has cost you the election and also subsequently cost you a deal that could have put you in government with the help of the Independents?
ANDREW ROBB: There is no doubt that public opinion of our costings process was materially influenced by this piece of deception and dishonesty by the Treasurer. By leaking this document and then not claiming responsibility for it, he has left a cloud over both his own Treasury and our own motives for questioning this process.
Our actions have been totally vindicated now by this action which is unbefitting of the office of the deputy prime minister.
SHANE MCLEOD: The Opposition’s finance spokesman, Andrew Robb, speaking to Alexandra Kirk in Canberra. ]
“Our actions have been totally vindicated”. says Robb. Huh!
Uhlmann currently accusing Morrison of exaggerating costs of asylum seekers on ABC24.
This story covers the rumored goings on around the position of Speaker
[
There is also growing speculation that Mr Jenkins could take the Chief Whip’s role, though former minister Joel Fitzgibbon is also in the running for the post vacated by Labor MP Roger Price when he retired at the last election.
Contacted by Capital Circle today, Mr Jenkins was reluctant to talk, although he confirmed that the Chief Whip’s role was on his political radar.
“I have seen those reports, but I am at the stage of my life where I will be making no comment on my immediate future,” he said.
And of the Speaker’s role, he said: “Of course I would be interested in continuing but that’s in the hands of others.”
]
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/capital-circle/harry-jenkins-ducks-for-cover-as-events-threaten-to-end-his-role-as-speaker/story-fn59nqgy-1225925269066
[ANDREW ROBB: There is no doubt that public opinion of our costings process was materially influenced by this piece of deception and dishonesty by the Treasurer. By leaking this document and then not claiming responsibility for it, he has left a cloud over both his own Treasury and our own motives for questioning this process.
Our actions have been totally vindicated now by this action which is unbefitting of the office of the deputy prime minister.]
I know people keep saying he is ill (and that is quite possible) but this man really is SLIME!
Jen
He now says he is better.
[She was right, the Right were wrong.]
Hey, I told youse all! Labor scrutineers are so clever that Julia G KNEW who was going to end up with the 2PP!! The Lib scrutineers obviously need lessons from us.
[He now says he is better.]
Ah, so now he is SMELLY SLIME?
I was just wondering if much research has been undertaken in Australia on whether left leaning or right leaning enrolled voters are less likely to vote ?
The reason I ask is I remember reading somewhere (?) that in America and the UK left leaning voters are harder to get off thie bums and vote given the non complusory votings systems of those countries.
[Will political sophisticates like SHY be able to say, “Our bits of the compromise deal are ‘a’ and ‘b’. They are real and good. The rest is bad and Labor will spin on and on about them.”]
It’s what the political sophisticates in the Liberal and Labor parties will probably do.
Nicely done on Hobart Radio, William.
Harse
The Liberals don’t count in this discussion, unless they happen to scrabble together a temporary get-together on a political issue.
However, Labor, the Independents and the Greens will face the issue of what to tell the public on each and every compromise. Will dissing their allies while praising themselves for parts only of compromises become the new paradigm? Or will each of the compromisers own the whole compromise, including accountability for raising relevant funds or robbing Peter to pay Paul?
Is there a link Rod Hagen (to Hobart radio) please
So when’s the 1st session of the kinder gentler parliament?
It might be worth a visit to Canberra.
[ was just wondering if much research has been undertaken in Australia on whether left leaning or right leaning enrolled voters are less likely to vote ?]
Labor certainly loses more through accidental informal voting, Doyley. Certainly in the past (and I suspect still today) , too, Aboriginal votes were substantially under-represented, both because of problems with electoral roles where a highly mobile population was involved and because of under-registration, difficulty in accessing polling places (though this has been reduced by the introduction of mobile polling booths) etc etc.
Similar problems no doubt apply to other poorly off groups in Australia. Lack of a stable living place alone can make it hard to stay on the rolls. Less well paid workers are likely to also have greater problems getting time off shift work on polling days, etc..
Eight-time nominee Abbott stars again at Ernie Awards for sexism September 17, 2010 – 6:57AM
[Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has taken out two Ernie Awards at the 18th annual forum that names and shames public figures for making sexist comments throughout the year.
But he missed out on the top prize this year, the Gold Ernie, which went to a group of university students at St Paul’s College in Sydney for setting up a pro-rape Facebook page.
The college’s “Define Statutory” group, which defined itself as “pro-rape, anti-consent”, was condemned by women’s groups, the government and police when it came to light last November.
Mr Abbott won a Political Silver Ernie award for such comments as “What the housewives of Australia need to understand as they do the ironing …”, at the awards show in Sydney last night.
He was the favourite to win the political category after being nominated this year eight times.
The winners are determined by how loud the 300 women who attend the event at NSW Parliament House in Sydney howl, hiss and boo the nominations.
Mr Abbott also took out the Clinton Award, reserved for repeat offenders.
But he was given a run for his money this year by his treasury spokesman Joe Hockey.
Mr Hockey was twice nominated for the political Ernie this year, including his election campaign gaffe: “(Treasurer) Wayne Swan is to surpluses, what Paris Hilton is to celibacy”.
Former David Jones CEO Mark McInnes shared this year’s Industrial Silver Ernie with mining magnate Clive Palmer.
Mr McInnes was dishonoured for allegedly telling his former secretary she was “overreacting” after he casually touched her breast.
Mr Palmer shared the gong for telling pregnant federal Housing Minister Tanya Plibersek, “you shouldn’t get too excited in your fragile condition”.
Ms Plibersek appears to have been on the receiving end of a lot of sexist flak this year.
ABC Radio presenter Genevieve Jacobs was given the Elaine award (for comments least helpful to the sisterhood) for an interview she had with Ms Plibersek.
“Do you feel bad that other people are raising your children?” Ms Jacobs asked the minister.]
Couldn’t resist posting this report. (bias showing 🙂 )
[Is there a link Rod Hagen (to Hobart radio) please]
I was listening on their live link through http://www.abc.net.au/hobart/?ref=portal_m10 , BH. Not sure if they put up a podcast later.
Good question Boerwar. I was merely responding to your disparaging remark about SHY. I think they will try and be nice to each other. I don’t think there will be an acrimonious falling out. But there will be politics, there will be disagreements, and these will be aired in public. It will be a very tough gig for Julia. I think the “we won’t reveal confidential discussions” line will get quite a run.
RH
All those things. Plus, perhaps, potential voters who have zero, zip, zilch faith in the system to do anything to change their personal circumstances and who therefore do not vote, are presumably a bit more likely to vote left should they bother to vote at all. Not sure how prisoners would vote… did Howard get rid of the prison vote?
OTOH, perhaps, the million or so Australians who are expatriates are more likely to be wealthy presumably a bit more likely to vote conservative?
[Uhlmann currently accusing Morrison of exaggerating costs of asylum seekers on ABC2]
One thing I will say for Uhlmann is that despite his frequently sarcastic approach to labor generally, he clearly has some direct views on the inappropriate treatment of asylum seekers under the Libs (and quite probably Labor too).
Rod @176,
thanks for that.
It is a issue that has always interested me as I have often wondered what the effect would be if voting in Australia remained 2pp but was non complusory. Advantage Labor/Greens or Libs?
Harse
They were not disparaging remarks about SHY. I was merely reporting accurately what I had heard in terms that SHY was herself using.
IMHO, SHY has to cross some sort of threshold in which she realizes that she is no longer an unaccountable sniper.
my say@80
The idea is to boost their *audited circulation* numbers. No doubt the higher the circulation the bigger the attraction advertisers’ have in paying to place ads in particular newspapers. They also charge more of course>
One of the supermarkets in my area have been running promotions, spend $5 minimum and get a free SMH. So I got a free SMH as I was buying a range of stuff I normally buy anyway.
The other day the same supermarket (TGA) was offering the same deal on the Sydney daily telegraph – I passed on that one.
Kohler wrote an interesting article this morning on the very subject which may also be of interest.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Fairfax-News-internet-paywalls-online-journalism-pd20100917-9CSE9?OpenDocument&src=rot
Turgid death throes of snail news.
[So when’s the 1st session of the kinder gentler parliament?]
Starts 28 September.
[All those things. Plus, perhaps, potential voters who have zero, zip, zilch faith in the system to do anything to change their personal circumstances and who therefore do not vote, are presumably a bit more likely to vote left should they bother to vote at all……]
Indeed Boerwar. Then there are the young eligible voters who overwhelmingly vote Green or Labor and who haven’t got around to getting on the rolls in time, etc etc.
All told it must really be amount to at least a couple of percent, probably more, in 2PP terms.
ltep
11 days to questions about the mining tax from the Libs and questions about tariffs from katter.
What will Willkie and Bandt be asking about I wonder
11 days to cave canem.
It is difficult to reconcile the ABC which allows every barely able to read and communicate substandard JJJ reject announcer to give his/her biased opinion about matters political with the ABC which has stopped the expert on our local gardening show from mentioning brand names when giving advice because it against the rules for them to advertise. Just another reason to turn their crap off.
Will the Opposition be able to ask questions of the Independents and the Greens?
Boerwar/185,
Snail Mail, Snail News, Snail Death 😛
PoK
I agree with the ABC rule that says, ‘No brand names.’ Good rule.
brisoz
Crikey=snailbait.
Been listening to link as posted by David@79 re Andrew Robb speaking on radio re AFP investigation to treasury leak. He basically has accused Wayne Swan of leaking these costings, and that this deceit has in effect cost them govt!
Listening to Morrison today, I thought
*Saying any number is the “biggest ever” is so easy when world popn is always increasing.
*How is the Oppn going to react if we have a huge refugee intake after flood, famine, earthquake etc etc. Will they demand the BOATS STOP then?
*Increasingly strident slogan “All the PM has to do is pick up the phone”. Competely ignores the caveat about UN and Rights.
[It is a issue that has always interested me as I have often wondered what the effect would be if voting in Australia remained 2pp but was non complusory. Advantage Labor/Greens or Libs?]
Experiences the world over seem to suggest this would favour the conservatives substantially, Doyley.
Anecdotally, I was handing out HTVs on a booth in McEwen at a new housing estate during the election (it turned out to be the strongest Labor 2PP booth in the entire electorate). Many people turned up during their lunch break to vote and were troubled that the queues were long and they might not back to work in time . As it was they could at least remind their employer that voting was compulsory if they got back late. If voting had not been compulsory I suspect many would have not felt able to stay.
Robb makes me sad
I think he is in denial severely
🙁
Victoria
I am not sure why Robb would continue to want to draw attention to his dodgy brothers’ costings. BUT. Suppose that Swan had leaked it… then what?
Boerwar
Most people would consider political sophisticate (sarcastically said) and unaccountable political sniper reasonably disparaging. Let’s hope the ALP are more sophisticated in their approach than the green-bashers who sit on the sidelines. And vice-versa for the Green supporters.