Final 2PP: 50.12-49.88 to Labor

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.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

2,186 comments on “Final 2PP: 50.12-49.88 to Labor”

Comments Page 40 of 44
1 … 39 40 41 … 44

  1. [Victoria

    I think Labor’s strategy is ignore, ignore, ignore.

    They used the strategy of ignore, ignore & it almost cost them the election.

    I don’t think that was their problem. So many things have happened in the wake of Abbott winning the Liberal leadership and the election that it’s difficult to attribute a singular cause at any rate. But it looks to me as if acknowledging the opposition’s position -and trying to address it – is the root cause.

    Two things that (in retrospect at least, though there were many arguing this at the time as well) would have maintained Labor’s strong position:]

    The problem for Labor since last year was two fold: the mining industry (on ETS and Tax), and Murdoch and media (on Broadband). To be fair to Labor there was a conspiracy going on, starting with intense mining industry throughout 2009. Everything that happened – including demeaning of Rudd, ETS, Abbot, Tax, etc etc. right up to Liberal ‘govt in opposition’ is fuelled and funded by two fold private industry influence. Issue is not personality of two leaders – that is spokescreen, propaganda, that is part of PR spin to avoid real issues. To be fair to Labor this conspiracy was huge – including popular media, talk back etc. Has the media really that the problem for what it is? Not how Rudd acted, or even change of leadership.

  2. Andrew@1948

    Rod, Tone and his cronies know they can say absolutely ANYTHING without the slightest MSM pressure or criticism. Its a disgrace

    Andrew, it is so consistent. Very little of what the libs allege is challenged, yet every word, facial expression etc of labor is focused on and beat up.

  3. Boerwar,

    [The first is that there are 42 million ‘uprooted’ people in the world. Greens policy is open-ended on the 42 million – unless I am mistaken. Come one, come all for the Australian asylum seekers’ test]

    Yes you are mistaken. Surprise, surprise. You should just be honest and say you hate the Greens instead of spinning it with rubbish.

  5. geoffrey

    spot on

    make sure you tell friends family to at least discuss

    [whether we want an Oz that is ruled by vested interests or the people]

    it is such a simple question

    🙁

  6. Is Angry Anderson a hypocrite doing an ad for the Libs – then appearing in this:

    [ kochie_online Great night MCing Living Oceans fund raiser for Sea Shepherd… How’s this for a band. Iva Davies, Angry Anderson, rob Hirst, Daryl Beattie
    3 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone ]

  10. [They actually stem from the time when Howard was in power and his absurd, inhuman, policies on such matters were in place]

    That explains Scott Morrison’s comment “well compensation gets paid from time to time” rather than the usual rant.

  11. “What should Labor be doing right now?”

    A good start would be to start releasing policy decisions and giving some exclusive interviews to sites such as Crikey.

    Newspaper circulation is plummeting, FTA television news is a joke, current affair shows even worse. Yet people are more informed than ever before. They are getting their info on the net. If the Govt.,Greens and Indis don’t realise this they are crazy.

    The only way to beat the fourth estate is take them on in the fifth estate. Call their bluff.

  12. Harse @ 1953

    Wrong, actually. I voted Greens in the Senate, Labor in the House. I handed out Labor HTVCs but when the Green HTVC person took off at 4pm at our booth I handed out Green HTVC as well. I don’t appreciate cant, hypocrisy or economic management by way of magic puddings.

    You appear to know that the Green’s policy to the 42 million potential asylum seekers is not open-ended. I would appreciate a reference to a Greens policy document or statement that demonstrates that they have numerical limits to the number of potential boat-borne asylum seekers and some indication of how these limits would be applied.

    In the absence of such a documented policy my points would stand. Given the existence of 42 million potential boat-borne asylum seekers the Greens have (a) no policy for limiting their numbers and (b) no policy and program costings for same. In the absence of such policies, it is a bit rich for holier-than-thou neophytes such as SHY to be badgering Labor about asylum seeker programs.

  13. Ian went –

    The only way to beat the fourth estate is take them on in the fifth estate. Call their bluff.

    Yep. Send them broke as well – really upset the mongrels.

    Twittering is an extremely powerful tool if organised.

  14. I am going to make a prediction on the economic front. If the economy continues to perform as well as it currently is and Canberra maintains a tight hold on the purse strings then I suspect the budget will be balanced earlier than 2013

  15. What Bob Brown is proposing is legislation to allow the two territories to determine whether they want euthanasia laws. The NT passed a euthanasia law (under a conservative government, following the agonizing and prolonged death of the then Chief Minister’s mother). The Howard Government, under the leadership of arch-catholic Andrews, overturned the right of the territories to determine their own legislation on the approach. There was a conscience vote on it then and there will be a conscience vote on it when new legislation is introduced.

  18. My guess is that around 99% of Australians have gone back to whatever it was they were doing before the elections and would not give a rat’s what Abbott is saying. It is not as if Action Man can actually do anything except look, sound and walk like a ratbag.

  19. Gusface – The current projection is for a balanced budget in the year 2013/2014 budget. since then we have seen big increases in business profits and strong employmernt growth therefore I think we can predict a balanced budget by 2012/2013.

    A lot will depend on how the Government maintains control over spending.

  25. Gusface – Very true but I think the Government is banking on the economy remaining stable and while there are some potential problems the positives at this point of time are pushing the budget along nicely.

    🙁 sad face for Tony

  26. Boerwar

    The Greens express no definitive numbers, nor do they say we want 42 million people here. You know very well the Greens don’t advocate allowing 42 million refugees to simply walk in through an open door. Their views on sustainable population alone render the argument ridiculous. They want them processed in a different way. I have no doubt they would allow more in than the ALP. But as was mentioned earlier there are not in fact 42 million refugees within a bulls-roar of Australia. You mention the word cant. Your comments on open door policy and 42 million are a fine example of it. Given you seem het up about their policies it’s curious you voted for them without being aware of it. Perhaps it’s just SHY you despise.

  27. BK #1954

    [That august body, the IPA, gets far more oxygen than it deserves]

    Too true. The Age just put this up as ‘comment’ on The Poodle’s latest NBN ravings:

    [ Savaging a popular policy a tricky task for Turnbull
    Chris Berg
    September 19, 2010

    MALCOLM Turnbull’s elevation to the shadow communications portfolio may be just what the debate over the national broadband network needs. It could be just what the Liberal Party needs, too. But Turnbull has a hell of a job: to persuade the electorate that a gigantic, government-subsidised gift of a super-fast internet is a bad idea. An Essential Report poll late last year found 65 per cent of Australians thought it was important the NBN was built. Sixty per cent of Coalition supporters did, too. As a general rule, Australians like free stuff even if eventually they have to pay for it through tax.

    Both the government and the opposition have lined up their new portfolios in time for the next sitting of Parliament.

    The election is over and Labor wants change, not continuity. Julia Gillard has tried to eliminate all traces of the embarrassing Kevin Rudd era.

    On the other side, the Coalition did astonishingly well at the election. So, Tony Abbott’s thinking goes, why fix what’s working? Turnbull’s move to communications is the only significant change.

    The Coalition’s broadband message was an unmitigated disaster during the election – the biggest problem with an otherwise robust campaign.

    It’s possible that Abbott is laying a cunning trap for his rival. From now on, the debate over the broadband is going to be intimately linked with Liberal Party leadership questions. And who would want to be saddled with the job of opposing one of Labor’s most popular policies?

    But Abbott needs Turnbull to do well. Ever since he took over in November 2009, Abbott’s leadership has burnt fast and hot. His strategy was to barge into The Lodge. Now it seems likely the Coalition faces a full term in opposition. Abbott has to turn off his fast burn and apply slow, indirect heat to the Gillard government. He will need his shadow ministers to break down government policies bit by bit, not try to blow them up as quickly as possible. In other words, Abbott is relying on Turnbull to make the broadband network look like insulation, not the mining tax. Turnbull may be able to do so.

    Since 2007, the government’s Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, has successfully portrayed any Coalition critic of his broadband plan as a Luddite, as if they were opposed to the very idea of the internet and just a sledgehammer away from machine breaking. Conroy won’t be able to play that card now. You couldn’t parody Turnbull’s love of technology. He was not just the chairman of Ozemail; he recently released an iPhone application dedicated to all things Malcolm.

    The Coalition can’t stop the broadband network, but it will be able to show how poorly thought through the project has been. After all, the network the government is building is not the network it took to the 2007 election. That first plan failed.

    On a now infamous flight between Canberra and Sydney in April last year, Conroy used the time he could get with Kevin Rudd to explain their $4.7 billion scheme wouldn’t work. The two men sketched the

    $43 billion scheme we’re getting now.

    If we’ve learnt anything about the internet, it’s that we always find new uses for it and we always want more speed. But that doesn’t mean this specific network at this specific price, built in this specific style is the best way to get it. And it doesn’t mean the network has to be built by government. Before the 2007 election, Telstra was desperate to roll out high-speed broadband itself. Had the Howard government made some regulatory changes, we would already have the network at no cost to the taxpayer.

    There’s a catalogue of problems with the NBN. A decade after Telstra’s privatisation, the government has taken responsibility for telecommunications.

    Unfortunately, the Coalition’s alternative policy does little to resolve the deep regulatory issues that have held back Australian broadband. But right now, the burden of proof is on the government to show its NBN is worth the price tag.

    The Liberals need their old, discarded leader to knock serious holes in the national broadband network.

    Chris Berg is a research fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs]

  29. If Fielding and the Coalition reject every piece of legislation this government puts forward, will that bring down this government?

  30. [Gusface – The current projection is for a balanced budget in the year 2013/2014 budget. since then we have seen big increases in business profits and strong employmernt growth therefore I think we can predict a balanced budget by 2012/2013.]

    Have you taken into account Labor who spend like drunken sailors can’t make any new spending committments for the next 3 years, and whom are now controlled by the greens who are going to introduce a carbon tax that will cost the government a fortune?

  31. Harse

    Getting to the point, just what numbers exactly do the Greens propose?

    A hundred thousand a year? Fifty thousand a year? Or will the numbers just sort of happen and the Greens don’t have a clue, are actually de facto advocating an open-ened number, but will not admit the open-ended number while at the same time sniping at Gillard et al?

    Why all the obfuscation?

  35. Cf community support for euthanasia I think someone on Insiders said this morning that the majority of people supported it in the ACT and the NT.

    Religious zealots of the Andrew’s stripe know this and falsify the situation. Which is a lie. And lying we know is a sin, a sin. Except, apparently, when it is to do g*ds work.

  41. [The unhinged one has just said that there are more important things for parliament than voluntary euthanasia and his Catholic sidekick Andrews said there is not widespread support for it.]

    Andrews overturned the NT euthanasia legislation. The issue is: should the Feds be able to overturn legislation enacted by the properly elected NT and ACT governments.

  42. [‘If Fielding and the Coalition reject every piece of legislation this government puts forward, will that bring down this government?]
    No.
    But it will get a lot of citizens really, really angry with the Coalition. Go for it. 🙂

  43. Abbott wins either way:

    (a) Turnbull mangages to destroy the Government. Abbott gets another electoral go-round.
    (b) Turnbull fails to destroy the Government. What a wuss.

  44. [Andrews overturned the NT euthanasia legislation. The issue is: should the Feds be able to overturn legislation enacted by the properly elected NT and ACT governments.,]
    Shinybum
    That’s the Constitution I’m afraid.

  45. Boerwar,

    They don’t propose numbers and perhaps they should, but given the numbers that are arriving currently they see no need to offer numbers. If 50-100K arrived then they would need to offer more than current. But its pretty standard politics not to do this. Just how many do Labor advocate by the way? 42 million is hyperbole pure and simple. Why won’t the ALP engage in a genuine debate about refugees and asylum seekers with the Australian population? Why all the obfuscation? And getting stuck into the ALP over their refugee treatment and asylum policies is politics rather than sniping.

  46. [‘If Fielding and the Coalition reject every piece of legislation this government puts forward, will that bring down this government?]

    No

  47. Harse

    42 million is the potential pool and this pool will continue to grow as we continue to cock up in Afghanistan and as sea levels rise over the next century or so. Of this pool several millions are in countries bordering, or close to bordering, the Indian Ocean.

    Labor is saying 13,500. So is the Coalition.[Which I think is pathetically low.]

    The Greens are the only open-ended number party in town. No number; no costings; but plenty of holier-than-thou and hypocritical sniping at other parties about their failings, asylum-seeker-wise.

    Until the Greens are willing to put their cards on the table, cf numbers and costs, they are inside a glass house.

  48. [Abbott wins either way:

    (a) Turnbull mangages to destroy the Government. Abbott gets another electoral go-round.
    (b) Turnbull fails to destroy the Government. What a wuss.]

    BW,

    (c) Turnbull is not that stupid. He will take Abbott down with him

  49. Finns
    Yes, there is a touch of monomania about it all. The fact that Turnbull has been open on his AGW views lately is an indicator. But what about the walruses?

  50. Turnbull is already winning.

    He is getting his mug in front of the press.

    The press is now talking policy not so much politics.

    He now gets more staff and resources to have fun.

    Kloppers has restarted the cc wars.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 40 of 44
1 … 39 40 41 … 44