Final score: 53.49-46.51 to Coalition

Definitive election results from the Australian Electoral Commission bring us the long-awaited national two-party preferred result, and details of minor party preference flows.

The Australian Electoral Commission finally lifted the lid on the completed federal election count yesterday, the detail we’ve all been waiting for being the final national two-party preferred result: 53.49-46.51 to the Coalition. That makes it the Coalition’s seventh best result since 1949, after 1966, 1975, 1977, 1955, 1958 and 1996, and better than any achieved since 1943 by Labor, whose modern high-water mark was Bob Hawke’s 53.23-46.77 victory in 1983. Labor nonetheless managed slender wins in the two-party vote race in Victoria (50.2%) and Tasmania (51.2%), with Western Australia remaining its worst state (41.72%).

No less interesting is the data on minor parties’ preference splits between Labor and the Coalition, confirming a significant increase in the share of preferences received by Labor compared with 2010. Labor’s share of Greens preferences was 83.03%, which compares with 80.78% in 2004, 79.69% in 2007 and 78.84% in 2010. My best guess here is that the Greens tended to lose votes from those driven by anti-major party sentiment, perhaps because of the closeness of their association with the government, leaving behind a more ideological voter base with a particular hostility to Tony Abbott.

Labor received 46.33% of Palmer United Party preferences, nearly identical to the overall “others” result of 46.69%. The latter was also the best for Labor since such figures were first published in 2004, recovering from a low of 41.74% in 2010. One consequence of this was that pollsters’ preference models based on 2010 election results overstated the Coalition on two-party preferred. Had preferences been as they were in 2010, the Coalition would have scored an extra 1% and a few more seats.

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.

2,313 comments on “Final score: 53.49-46.51 to Coalition”

Comments Page 2 of 47
1 2 3 47
  1. Boerwar

    Posted Friday, November 29, 2013 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    Surprise No 35 Despite Abbott emphasizing repeatedly that Australia is open for business, and despite Hockey announcing publicly that he would not be ‘bullied’ in relation to the decision, Hockey rejects the Archer Daniels Midland bid.

  2. [when will the Coalition bring Malcolm Turnbull back?]

    The fixed belief amongst Liberal apologists that (i)this is possible and (ii) this is desirable is part of the reason so many people held their nose and voted for Abbott.

    In doing so — they voted in a whole lot of new MPs who think – as would most of the Class of 2010 – that they owe their seat to Abbott, who went to the election openly backing Abbott’s approach and policies, and who probably sought preselection in the first place partly because they liked the cut of his jib.

    Since Abbott took over the leadership by one vote, the moderates in the party room have decreased dramatically. The party room is now controlled by Ayn Rand devotees, populists who identify redneck yobbo values as those of mainstream Australia and hacks who are in Parliament because their mates couldn’t find anything more useful for them to do.

    Most of the above aren’t going to vote for Turnbull in a pink fit. If the polls get bad and they get pragmatic about it (although it’s hard to see a pragmatist amongst them) they’ll go for someone THEY see as more appealing, such as Scott Morrison.

    When Turnbull WAS leader, he knew he was only leader through the gift of people such as those I’ve described above. He was the first to promote Sophie Mirabella to the Ministry, for example – because he owed her. His only attempt to walk the talk his supporters expected him to was with the CPRS – and his leadership was so weak that the process dragged on long enough for the nutters to destabilise him.

    Turnbull is the Liberal’s Rudd. Liberal supporters idolise him, but the party room won’t have a bar of him. If he does come back, the Liberal supporters will quickly remember why they didn’t support him when he was leader, and the party room will give him even less token support than they did last time.

  3. While OM is carrying on about ADM, Hockey admitted there were 130 other applications for foreign ownership received by the govt since the election that he has approved.

    I’d love to know who these applications were from, and for what, esp as it seems the rush of applications has come since the govt changed hands.

  4. Hockey did not look like a man who was happy with his own decision. All the usual bluster and arrogance absent.

    I caught part of Joe Hockey’s announcement on the ABC. I didn’t recognise his voice. It was a low monotone without any attacks on the previous government.

  5. Conroy asking Ziggy to justify his salary, whether and when he turns up for work, his phone bill etc.

    Ziggy asks “Why would you want to know that?”

    Conroy replies, “Because this committee is entitled to ask about the expenditure of public money.”

  6. I did not expect Conroy’s line of questioning to start with when Ziggy was approached for a role in NBN, his remuneration etc.

  7. Barry Cassidy on buyer’s remorse.

    [The polls already show the Abbott government going backwards, against historical trends. It’s not yet buyer’s remorse. The electorate will still be well pleased they got rid of the clapped out sedan. However, they might be starting to think the Tony’s trade-in is not quite what they expected either.]

  8. Laura Tingle, this morning, on business people wanting Malcolm Rainman Turnbull back as leader:
    [it remains the case that many in the Coalition would rather eat ground glass than go back to Turnbull as leader]
    She reckons Joe Hockey has the inside running for new Lib leader.

  9. guytaur@42

    Nationalise Qantas next.

    Well the way Qantas management has run it down, it should be available real cheap.

    When I was in the RAAF, Qantas was jokingly referred to as ‘RAAF Qantas’ as it was seen as a defence asset which could be pressed into service in any sort of an emergency where a lot of air lift capacity was required. e.g. Cyclone Tracy.

    I see it as a strategic asset and am not convinced that selling it was a good idea as a lot of its maintenance capacity is being moved overseas.

  10. Hi all,

    Who cares about the Liberal leadershit. Zoomsters comment is correct in so far that if Abbott is given the flick it will only be to replace him with another scumbag. Who knows why Turnbull is hanging around, I think probably the Lib party have encouraged him to as they think it gives them a more acceptable public face. IMHO deep down though their all rotten.

  11. “@sortius: Ziggy admits to bringing Mark Galvin of BT in to “help” with the review. Where’s the Google execs? #NBN #SenateCommittee”

  12. Cassidy:

    The polls already show the Abbott government going backwards, against historical trends. It’s not yet buyer’s remorse. The electorate will still be well pleased they got rid of the clapped out sedan. However, they might be starting to think the Tony’s trade-in is not quite what they expected either.

    The “clapped out sedan” was only “clapped out” because Abbott and his gang took to it with a tyre iron, denting every panel, smashing every piece of glass. They let the tyres down, poured sugar in the petrol tank and shoved a potato up the exhaust pipe. They drained the sump and keyringed the Duco.

    Then they had the hide to say the original owner hadn’t looked after it.

    Worse, journalists like Cassidy, swallowed the line whole, and repeat it ad nauseam.

  13. BB,
    Yes, Cassidy is just another smart-arse reporter who thinks he is a political player. How he has survived so long is beyond me.

  14. Re Zoomster @55: Malcolm Turnbull himself must think he has a chance of regaining the leadership otherwise why would he still be there? Not to play second or third fiddle to someone like Abbott. Still, I can’t see it. I’m sure Zoomster is right.

    To regain the leadership, Malcolm Turnbull would have to compromise with the rednecks and recant past beliefs and positions (e.g. on Climate Change) to such an extent that he wouldn’t be believed by his opponents nor respected by his current supporters. Mitt Romney tried something similar in the USA and it didn’t work.

  15. [21
    Oakeshott Country

    Postal votes must be postmarked on of before election day to be valid. You can not vote knowing the result but you certainly can vote before the campaign has fully played out]

    I agree….and expect your comment may have been intended for “compass”

  16. PERTH has sweltered through its warmest spring in 116 years, thanks to hot easterly winds and warmer oceans.

    Following on from the city’s wettest September in 40 years, Perth has experienced its warmest three months to November since records began in 1897.

    But don’t be concerned about climate change, Abbott has it in hand.

  17. When is the last time there was msm media speculation about who would replace a landslide-winning PM within 150 days of his electoral win?

    I think zoomster is spot on about turnbull. His only chance of realising his ambition to be PM would be to form his own party and make him being PM a condition of him forming a majority-forming coalition with labor (i.e. a snowball’s chance in hell). If he wants any credibility and ‘a place in history’ (as I am sure he wants), he needs to split from the tea party and create a viable centralist liberal democrat party. I think he is more a garrett than a rudd – many people had high hopes, but he was defeated by the party room and has decided to tow the line – he is silent on climate change, refugees and knowingly peddling a crock of shit fraudband.

    Abbott on the other hand is the liberal latham – but with even less smarts and charisma. (has anybody compared Battlelines with Civilizing Global Capital? – they’re not a million miles apart and both were job applications by loons trying to be taken seriously).

    Labor dodged a bullet with latham not being elected (not completely – I’d say the wound was more than superficial, although it did howard to workchoices and loss of his own seat). The LNP have taken a mortar to the chest with the election of abbott. Is it wrong to watch them mortally wounded and reeling from one disaster to another with glee?

    and as a complete aside, here’s something for the older (>55 y.o). posters here – I’m younger but have siblings in their late 50s, so I grew up with it – I was teaching my kids the classics, and found this re-recording on Youtube which is excellent – almost word perfect to the 1968 original, but with hilarious new stuff right at the end.

  18. “@sortius: Wow, smackdown: Conroy asks Ziggy why he’s willing to spend $30b if he can’t predict what will happen in a year’s time #NBN #SenateCommittee”

  19. [Wow, smackdown: Conroy asks Ziggy why he’s willing to spend $30b if he can’t predict what will happen in a year’s time #NBN #SenateCommittee]

  20. “@paddybts: LOL #SenateEnquiry #NBN shuts down for coffee, so Telstra can repair the plastic bag around @SenatorLudlam ‘s phoneline #facepalm”

Comments Page 2 of 47
1 2 3 47

Leave a Reply

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