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 42 of 44
1 41 42 43 44
  1. to jog your memories

    albury wodonga

    1974

    that is 36 repeat 36 years ago

    the decentralisation report of 1974 recommended

    20 yes twenty AW’s

    since then we have had

    NONE

  2. Ron

    There was no mandatory detention before 1992 so its not strictly needed.

    Of course we guard out borders and undertake checks and that requires some detection detention and process but if they are not security and health risks they can be accommodated within the community.

    Its great if less people risk their lives by boat and hock their future and family with undesirables.

    I assume the regional solution negotiations will go something like this – If we grt more than 1000 people arrive by boat each year our intake figure stays at 13,500 and we will maintain a mandatory detention regime with indeterminate process times.

    If we get less than 1000 unauthourised we will take 30000 – 40000 from priority camps – Indonesia – the regional centre , etc and fast track these people into communities subject to agreements on particular regions and work for a set period – ie 2 -3 years.

  3. gough1
    Posted Monday, September 20, 2010 at 1:09 am | Permalink

    “Ron

    Of course we guard out borders and undertake checks and that requires some detection detention and process but if they are not security and health risks they can be accommodated within the community.”

    well after they’ve been so checked (via mandatory detention to facilitate same) , there is NO reason I agree for legit refugees to be welcomed From info I’ve heard they make wonderful aussies

    its a point i feel Abbott should be chalenged to say yea or nay to Also I do think Abbott has made all present oz refugees (who obvous passed 3 above tests feel quite unwelcome here in oz, a disgrace

    “Its great if less people risk their lives by boat and hock their future and family with undesirables.”

    yes , one advant of having Timor regional process
    As to your suggest outcome of Kevin , I think it will be generous to Timor if they do agree , and so it should be as they’d be helping not just countrys but refugees themselves in dignity and under UNHCR & conventions

  4. Tomorrow’s OO:

    [ aus_politics Senator ends his hard line on tax: THE Greens will not insist on hardening the government’s controversial mining t… http://bit.ly/bNharv
    19 minutes ago via twitterfeed

    aus_politics Ruddock ready to serve in chair: AUSTRALIA’S longest-serving MP, Philip Ruddock, has said he does not “covet” the … http://bit.ly/9MocZS
    19 minutes ago via twitterfeed

    aus_politics Brown seeks to legislate euthanasia: JULIA Gillard says a conscience vote is likely for Labor MPs if the Greens pu… http://bit.ly/beGhAv
    19 minutes ago via twitterfeed

    aus_politics Rudd the statesman takes centrestage: THE rehabilitation of Kevin Rudd the statesman looks complete. http://bit.ly/b3sUvV
    19 minutes ago via twitterfeed

    aus_politics State carbon plan puts heat on PM: PRESSURE is growing on the Gillard government to come up with a price on carbon. http://bit.ly/bOzuWS
    19 minutes ago via twitterfeed]

  5. Abbott certainly has confounded me by being allowed to stay on after losing an election. The Liberals would have replaced any other loser at the first party room meeting in the past. Maybe there is less talent than ever before in the Liberal Party at present and a loser is the best they can manage.

  6. steve…not any pollies that I could see (certainly no JoHo), but at the stop there was a fair amount of baby-holding going on…election campaigning still

  7. The idea behind the regional solution is to discourage people getting into boats in the first place – they go directly to East Timor from Indonesia etc.

    This is because it is not humane by any definition of the word that I’m aware of to encourage people to risk their lives unnecessarily.

    This is why the vast majority of refugee organisations (I’ve only found one exception) support the idea of a regional processing centre and have been arguing for one for years now.

    If you’re a government reforming AS policy you listen to the experts, which are the refugee advocates. It is clear that the government did this.

    The Greens appear to be the only group of any political colour who are arguing against regional processing.

    I’d be interested in someone explaining to me why we should encourage people to arrive here in a way which has been proven to result in large numbers of deaths (apart from the character building argument, which is just nonsense).

    Asylum seekers have, in most cases, already risked their lives escaping from their country of origin. I’m not sure why we should be forcing them to do so again by failing to provide a means of being processed other than arriving here by boat.

  8. In normal times it would have been Joe Hockey’s turn to lead the Liberals but he got swallowed up with the Great Big Liberal Costings Black Hole and now there is nobody fit for the job of Liberal Leader except a failed leader.

  9. The Liberals don’t believe they lost the election so it’s not really a comparable situation. Besides, in most occasions the leader isn’t replaced until some time into the next term.

  10. “locoon riding from somewhere to somewhere” don’t you mean nowhere to nowhere” and
    “steve Laocoon was the rest of the Party room following him or was he on his own?”

    they are all following like Lemmings now where is that cliff

  11. [The Greens appear to be the only group of any political colour who are arguing against regional processing. ]

    In the first week of the election campaign, Sarah Hanson Young appeared on a Sky panel with Bruce Baird, David Oldfield and (I think) a woman from Amnesty. She attacked the East Timor solution as inhumane, and no better than Nauru. In response to Oldfield’s statement that AS coming by boat was risky and dangerous, she said the Greens would charter boats, even use the Navy to collect AS from Indonesia to process them here.
    At the time I had a look at their website and couldn’t find ferrying AS as a Greens policy. Perhaps it is now.

  12. Haha, the OO are such dirty scoundrels! In that report about Ruddock, the article begins by claiming that Oakeshott’s desire for the speaker chair is “unlawful.”

    “What the hell,” I know you’re asking “all 150 MHRs have the legal right to be elected to that seat!” and of course you’re right. So what was the “unlawful” business? Surely Ruddock knows better? Well, when you read further, you realise he was actually talking about Oakshott wanting to be speaker but to be able to retain his vote which, regardless of whether or not that was what Oakeshott meant, Ruddock (correctly) stated was unconstitutional and thus unlawful.

    The OO apparently decided to make it seem like an Oakeshott speakership itself was unlawful. Another addition to the “illegitimate government” meme?

  13. ltep@2065

    The Liberals don’t believe they lost the election so it’s not really a comparable situation. Besides, in most occasions the leader isn’t replaced until some time into the next term.

    They STILL haven’t accepted losing in 2007.

  14. Pebbles that fits, invisibility seems to be the predominant trait. Perhaps one of the house tories can supply a list of what this claim to Leader of the Opposition is based on when a loss would not have been enough to continue in that position in the past. Usually they would not have even had the hide to stand for Opposition Leader after losing, let alone get voted in again. Perhaps someone should tap Abbott quietly on the shoulder and tell him his time is up.

    Funny that they attempted to tap Howard on the shoulder and failed and now they don’t even seem capable of telling Abbott how the game is played.

  15. [Federal Liberal MP Kevin Andrews, who introduced the legislation in 1996 that led to the current ban, says he will fight against the move to overturn the ban.

    Mr Andrews says there is not wide-spread public support for euthanasia.

    “I don’t think attitudes have changed at all,” he said.

    “In fact what we’ve seen in the decade or so since is attempts at various state levels to introduce euthanasia legislation and they’ve been rejected every time.”]

    So why be afraid of parliamentary debate on euthanasia? And more to the point, why not restore the right for the Territories to make laws on euthanasia so their parliaments can have that debate just like the states have?

    There’s a logic FAIL on the part of Andrews’ arguments. The issue isn’t whether there’s been a shift in public sentiment on euthanasia, but whether Territory parliaments should be the ones to decide on euthanasia laws instead of the Federal parliament preventing them from doing so.

  16. Good morning, Bludgers.

    [The Liberals don’t believe they lost the election]

    Text-book case of

    [7 Stages of Grief…

    1. SHOCK & DENIAL-
    You will probably react to learning of the loss with numbed disbelief. You may deny the reality of the loss at some level, in order to avoid the pain. Shock provides emotional protection from being overwhelmed all at once. This may last for weeks.]

    This is week 5 since the election; but only since Rob O & Tony W made their decision, so this stage many go on & …

    [2. PAIN & GUILT-
    As the shock wears off, it is replaced with the suffering of unbelievable pain. Although excruciating and almost unbearable, it is important that you experience the pain fully, and not hide it, avoid it or escape from it with alcohol or drugs.

    You may have guilty feelings or remorse over things you did … Life feels chaotic and scary during this phase.]

    Probably not much hope that NewsLtd & ABC will leave them to suffer in silence – if Abbott, Pyne, J Bishop & Co understand the meaning of “suffer in silence”.

    [3. ANGER & BARGAINING-
    Frustration gives way to anger, and you may lash out and lay unwarranted blame … on someone else. Please try to control this, as permanent damage to your relationships may result. This is a time for the release of bottled up emotion.

    You may rail against fate, questioning “Why me?” You may also try to bargain in vain with the powers that be for a way out of your despair]

    I rather thought we’d already a fair lashing of Frustration gives way to anger, and you may lash out and lay unwarranted blame … on someone else

    Ah, well, it’s a fair way from 1 July 2011 and …

    [4. “DEPRESSION”, REFLECTION, LONELINESS-
    a long period of sad reflection will likely overtake you. This is a normal stage of grief, so do not be “talked out of it” by well-meaning outsiders. Encouragement from others is not helpful to you during this stage of grieving.

    During this time, you finally realize the true magnitude of your loss, and it depresses you. You may isolate yourself on purpose … and focus on memories of the past. You may sense feelings of emptiness or despair.]

    To be fair, postDismissal, it did take Labor 2 terms to reach

    [5. THE UPWARD TURN-
    As you start to adjust to life without {what you treasure}, your life becomes a little calmer and more organized.]

    and another one to recover completely – with a lot of help from MalT & Little Johnny’s blunders (which, I profoundly hope, whoever is Labor PM & Treasure at the time fails to offer! How else can the best Hawk-Keatings run, yet alone Menzies & successors’ 23 years)

    http://www.recover-from-grief.com/7-stages-of-grief.html

  17. [In normal times it would have been Joe Hockey’s turn to lead the Liberals but he got swallowed up with the Great Big Liberal Costings Black Hole and now there is nobody fit for the job of Liberal Leader except a failed leader.]

    What about John Howard, since his cricket thingy didn’t work out. Or what about Peter Costello… oh wait, he’s leading the world bank or some such, right? …right?

  18. Oz Pol Tragic:
    Remember that the stages of grief are usually cyclical, not lineal. So we could see the denial and anger stages revisited. Numerous times. In fact I think the Libs are still going through these two stages from 2007.

  19. The “parliament should focus on bread and butter issues” argument is of course an intellectually dishonest argument being put forward by conservative extremists. Obviously the issue was important enough to debate in the 90s so it should be equally as important now. It’s got a fairly high chance of failure I’d imagine so what’s the harm?

  20. [confessions
    Posted Monday, September 20, 2010 at 8:23 am | Permalink

    Federal Liberal MP Kevin Andrews, who introduced the legislation in 1996 that led to the current ban, says he will fight against the move to overturn the ban.

    Mr Andrews says there is not wide-spread public support for euthanasia.

    “I don’t think attitudes have changed at all,” he said.

    “In fact what we’ve seen in the decade or so since is attempts at various state levels to introduce euthanasia legislation and they’ve been rejected every time.]

    Anyone who still doesn’t believe Andrews thinking is not strongly influenced by his catholic beliefs, should no longer harbor same. I heard Bob Brown on News Radio this morning quote a survey which indicated 80% of Australians were in favour.
    Andrews is not making decisions based on common sense but on fairy tales.

  21. [They should be campaigning already in a more obvious way about what their intentions are for the country and they should make people feel more connected to their government. It might be a good idea to make a new version of town-hall meetings for backbenchers and marginal seat holders to hold to educate their constituency in the policies of the government, and correct myths.]

    jlg@34 – this is what the Libs/Nats are going to do. I think Labor should have someone at every meeting and answer every accusation thrown at them.

  22. I also wonder if the Wild Rivers private members bill that Abbott has pledged to reintroduce and pass is a ‘bread and butter’ issue.

  23. ltep and DAvid:

    The issue isn’t whether there is public acceptance of euthanasia – there may or may not be. The issue here is whether the NT and ACT should have the same entitlements as the states to pass euthanasia laws. This is the bill that Bob Brown wants Federal parliament to debate. Andrews and Abbott are trying to muddy the waters by implying that, if passed, the bill will legalise euthanasia. It won’t, unless state/territory parliaments legislate as such.

  24. Too early in the morning here for me to have seen the paper version of the West Australian, but I’m amazed to find not one anti Labor opinion piece/article in the electronic version.

    Hell is truly freezing over.

  25. [I also wonder if the Wild Rivers private members bill that Abbott has pledged to reintroduce and pass is a ‘bread and butter’ issue.]

    No that would be one of the “state” issues that Rabbott lost the campaign on. Wild Rivers legislation was passed by the Queensland Government.

  26. confessions I appreciate the point you make about the NT and ACT, do not disagree. My point is Andrews and Abbott do not want any discussion, their minds are made up, because of their religious beliefs. Euthanasia is not acceptable anywhere, anyhow. This first move to give the NT and ACT entitlement is not acceptable to them.

  27. The Liberals are being completely ridiculous in their assertions that pairing the Speaker would be illegal. If so, why did they sign up to an agreement that clearly stated the Speaker would be paired? Or was that agreement only worth something if they formed government?

  28. David all this overriding of NT and ACT seems to tie in precisely with the overriding of Queensland legislation with the Wild Rivers legislation. The funny thing is that Noel Pearson was all gungho about replicating the NT intervention in Queensland has now put all that on the backburner to help his Liberal mates fight the Wild Rivers Legislation.

  29. I missed this on Friday: an interesting article on peak oil and climate change and how they interact.
    http://www.smh.com.au/business/peak-oil-and-climate-must-be-tackled-in-tandem-20100916-15esa.html

    As the global economy recovers peak oil is bound to come back. To illustrate why oil price and cliamte change are different but related issues, consider this: the carbon price to create change in energy markets ($30/tonne) is equal to 8 cents per litre on oil prices. Yet when the first Arab oil crisis happened in 1974, a world shortfall in oil supply of only 15% saw prices multiplied by four in under six months.

    A carbon price really is the first step. It will stop kooky solutions to peak oil, like some biofuels, or shale oil. The former would require all of Australia’s crops to produce maybe 1/3 of our oil needs. The latter produces twice as much CO2 as just burning oil.

  30. Another close run election result – though I think it is a neo-Nazi party that potentially has the balance of power. This joins UK, Belguim and I think the Netherlands, as well as Oz…has anyone attempted a thematic piece on systemic causes of indecisive election results?
    [Sweden was last night heading for a tightly balanced parliament after elections looked likely to erode the majority commanded by the governing centre-right coalition.Fredrik Reinfeldt, the prime minister, looked likely to beat the Social Democrats easily, making the Moderate Party leader the first non-socialist to win re-election since the 1930s.

    Reinfeldt’s bid to hold on to power, built on small budget deficits, tax cuts and strong economic growth, is being closely watched by David Cameron. Both leaders have re-branded their parties and entered into partnerships with centrist liberals.

    However, Reinfeldt’s majority was under threat yesterday from the far-right Sweden Democrats, who have sought to harness anti-immigrant sentiment in a country where one in seven residents is foreign-born. In an unusually close poll, it appeared from exit polls that the party had managed to cross the 4% threshold necessary to win parliamentary seats.

    A strong performance by the Sweden Democrats and the prospect of a hung parliament looked likely to trigger a fall in the krona against the euro and volatility on the Stockholm financial markets.

    Both the governing coalition and the centre-left opposition bloc have pledged not to join forces with the Sweden Democrats. Reinfeldt has said he would try first to build a coalition with the Green Party if he lost his outright majority.

    The rise of the far-right party, which has moved away from its skinhead roots under a youthful leadership and the slogan “Tradition and Security”, reflects a wider anti-immigrant backlash across Europe, as recession and budget cuts take hold. In their campaign, the Sweden Democrats raised the spectre of creeping Islamicisation of society and promised to crack down on immigration.]
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/19/sweden-election-reinfeldt-democrats-right

  31. [“I don’t think attitudes have changed at all,” he said

    Anyone who still doesn’t believe Andrews thinking is not strongly influenced by his catholic beliefs, should no longer harbor same.]

    In a way, KA’s right. I’m fairly sure there WAS A clear (opinion poll) pro-euthanasia MAJORITY at the time Andrews, Abbott & co intervened; just as there was for stem cell research & RU 486, and there is to grant Australian gay couples the right to marry here legally.

    Two down; two to go; though they won’t get through the current Senate. First Bills to be passed by the new Senate would be great!

    BTW: Papal (antiAtheist, anti women priests etc) rhetoric in UK won’t have softened Abbott & Andrews’ stance at all; nor will a major poll showing The Pope “is seriously out of step with his followers on several key issues” quite the contrary.

  32. Abbott surely is keeping his job at the moment because there’s no candidate fit to replace him. He’s got cachet because he got them so close, but if they were smart they’d realise he’s done his job now and they have no further use for him.

    I don’t think they’re in denial or anything like that. I just think they’re out of ideas. They’re hoping that repeating the same accusations will… well, will do something anyway. I doubt they’ve figured out what that something is supposed to be.

    My dad’s retired and he lives up in Oakeshott’s seat. He seems to think the community up there is livid with O for selling out the right. He’s popular, but the dominant political idea up there is “anyone but Labor”. So lining up with the ALP is looking like a betrayal to them. He’s got a lot of work to do to turn that thinking around, by the sound of it.

  33. Thanks Laocoon

    Interesting that they have proportional representation but a threshold (4%) to pass before you get parliamentary seats. I’d quite like to see that here in the Senate.

    Below the line preference deals mean that people like Fielding getting in on 2% of the vote have absolutely no credibility whatsoever, given that very few people would have allocated him preferences belwo the line either. They then hold the parliament to ransom. A 4% threshold wouldn’t stop any credible minor party.

  34. [Abbott certainly has confounded me by being allowed to stay on after losing an election. The Liberals would have replaced any other loser at the first party room meeting in the past. Maybe there is less talent than ever before in the Liberal Party at present and a loser is the best they can manage.]

    Could be the fact he took out a first term Prime Minister, and nearly did the same to his replacement.

    Just a guess.

  35. David: your observations about the motivations of Andrews and Abbott are in all likelihood correct. But this just plays into their hands. They want the public to think Brown’s bill is about passing euthanasia because it allows them to portray their opposition to it on moral grounds, rather than the anti-democratic action it is.

    There is no logical argument against allowing the Territory parliaments to debate and pass their own laws on euthanasia. They are, after all, accountable to their own voters, not Liberals in Sydney and Melbourne. Same goes for Wild Rivers. If the Bligh govt has passed laws in defiance of the wishes of Qld voters, then it will be held to account at the ballot box.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 42 of 44
1 41 42 43 44