Election plus two weeks

A deep look at federal election swings, plus a few meagre snippets of post-election polling news.

Two points to emerge from our friends in the polling community, which passed notice while I’ve been diverted by close counts:

• ReachTEL has published a helpful table illustrating pollster accuracy, which is sporting of them given the attention it calls to the eye-watering accuracy of Newspoll. However, all concerned did very well in predicting a two-party preferred result which, by my back-of-envelope reading, will ultimately settle at around 50.5-49.5 to the Coalition. Essential and especially Ipsos overshot on support for the Greens, with the latter landing around 2% too low for both major parties, but the only other substantial errors involved the balance of support between the Liberals and the Nationals, which I don’t regard as particularly important. Electorate polls were a different matter, and will be looked at in greater detail when all the results are in.

• On the Tuesday evening following the election, Roy Morgan conducted an SMS poll poll from 3587 respondents on leadership approval. The poll had Malcolm Turnbull with a narrow 51-47 lead as preferred prime minister, which the Morgan release sets up for comparison with a 57-24 result from May. However, the May result was an interviewer-administered phone poll, a method evidently less conducive to a “neither/can’t say” response. The poll also found Malcolm Turnbull leading Tony Abbott by 71-25 as preferred Liberal leader, and Anthony Albanese leading Bill Shorten 49-48 for Labor.

Now to an exercise I’ve conducted to get a clearer sense of what sort of areas did and didn’t swing. The chart below shows results of a regression analysis on 6582 polling booth results in which two-party swing data was available, which excludes the 14 electorates where the AEC’s two-party count is not between Labor and the Coalition. The purpose here is to discern if the swing to Labor was more or less evident in areas with particular demographic characteristics. The results record a big move back to Labor in the ever-volatile mortgage belts; an apparent failure of the Abbott-to-Turnbull leadership switch to improve the Coalition’s standing in ethnic communities; and better swing results for the Coalition where voters were wealthier and better educated, and – perhaps more surprisingly – older.

2016-07-17-regression

After the constant and starting with “Age”, the table lists the associations between polling booth swings to the Coalition, which in practice usually means negative results recording swings to Labor, and five demographic variables for the census districts in which the booths were located. All but one of these variables, English spoken at home, records a statistically significant association with the swing, as indicated by a score of less than .05 in the significance column on the right. The “B” coefficient of .001 for “Age” tells us that areas with a median age of 40 would generally swing 1% more favourably for the Coalition than areas with a median age of 30. “MFY” stands for median weekly family income and is measured in thousands, so the coefficient means swings tended to be 0.3% stronger for the Coalition for every $1000 of average household income. “School” represents the percentage of the 18-plus population who had completed high school, every point of which associates with nearly 0.1% of swing in favour of the Coalition. Conversely, Labor did 0.02% better for every percentage point of mortgaged dwellings.

The five demographic variables are followed by geographic ones that are there to ensure the results for the demographic variables aren’t influenced by regional differences in the swing, particularly those from state to state. Sydney is excluded so it works as a baseline, so the coefficient for Melbourne tells us that the Coalition would typically do 2.6% better there than at a demographically identical booth in Sydney. Finally, two variables are listed to control for retiring member and sophomore surge effects, which prove to be significant in both cases. “LNPgain” was coded 1 where the candidate was a Coalition sophomore and -1 where a Coalition member was retiring; vice-versa in the case of Labor sophomores and retirees; and zero where neither applied. “ALPloss” was coded 1 where Labor lost the seat in 2013 and 0 otherwise, to measure the boost to the sophomore effect in seats where Labor had a sitting member defending last time. The results suggest Coalition members who won their seats from Labor in 2013 did 2.2% better in swing terms than other Coalition candidates, which reduces to 0.5% in seats where they were replacing retiring Coalition members.

To observe these effects in action, the four tables below identify the 15 highest and lowest ranked electorates by the four statistically significant demographic indicators, and show their two-party swings to the Coalition where available. The lowest education electorates, all of which are regional, were 4.0% worse for the Coalition than those at the top of the scale, of which all apart from Fenner in the ACT are near the centres of the largest cities. Median age was more of a mixed bag — old electorates are regional, but the young ones encompass inner cities, mortgage belts, enclaves, a defence town and the largely indigenous seat of Lingiari. Nonetheless, the distinction here is as great as it was for education, and not in the direction that might have been anticipated from a touted backlash over superannuation policy.

2016-07-17-tables-B

The lowest income electorates, all of which are regional other than two in Sydney, recorded an average 3.5% swing to Labor, only slightly above the national result. But the results for the Liberals were well above average among the wealthiest electorates, over half of which swung in the Coalition’s favour. The mortgage effect is more modest, with 2.8% separating the averages for the top and bottom fifteen. Electorates at the top end of the mortgaged dwellings table are all in the outer suburbs of big cities, but the bottom end is a dissonant mix of regional and inner-city areas, producing a wide range of swing results.

The extent to which this exercise actually explains the results is illustrated by the chart below. For each electorate, the result the model would have predicted is plotted on the horizontal axis, and the actual result is plotted on the vertical. The electorates identified by name are those where the Coalition most under-performed or over-performed the prediction. Keep in mind that this accounts for regional as well as demographic factors, so Lyons shows up as a strong Liberal performance because the swing there was lower than in the other three Tasmanian seats included (remember Denison is not included due to its lack of two-party swing figures). Most electorates’ results were within 2% of the prediction, but a good many had results where alternative explanations are substantially required.

2016-07-17-model-B

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.

1,112 comments on “Election plus two weeks”

  1. trog sorrenson @ #897 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 8:20 am

    Lizzie
    Hanson is a racist, that’s clear. The problem is that she now has a megaphone and dwells in all our living rooms. I reckon a fair number of her supporters are probably racist as well, but its a type of latent racism that only comes to the surface when you feel threatened. Like some bastard is taking your job, or you want to blame someone for the shit position you find yourself in.

    Yes, exactly. That same ‘What about me?” theme.

  2. I saw a USA researcher being interviewed on Sunday, talking about the rise of RWNJ parties all over the globe.

    I only caught part of the interview, unfortunately not including his name, but he appeared to be very measured and sensible.

    In the bit I caught, he made the point that no-one at this stage knows why this has occurred, but he said that certain trends are appearing in research. The first mentioned in each category are less likely to support the RWNJs:

    Educated v Un-educated
    Coastal Dwellers v Inland Dwellers (interesting)
    Digital Era Participants v Non-participants

    I’ll try and find out who he was and seek greater accuracy.

  3. Re the Greens performance in the Reps and senate.
    In the Reps, if my maths is correct:
    The Greens vote increased by 1.5% of the TOTAL VOTE but relative to their 2013 base, they increased by 17%. (I concede that the 2013 base was pretty low.)
    Labors vote increased by 1.3% of the TOTAL VOTE but relative to their 2013 base, they increased by 4%.
    In the Senate:
    The whole situation blew up because of Malcy’s DD.

    Thanks Malcy, you have delivered Hanson to our living rooms, and now join Rudd, Abbott, and Howard among the Pantheon of Political Failures to adorn the toilet corridor in Parliament house.

  4. Lets see if this lasts longer then the first whiff of gunshot –

    …..a defiant Prime Minister warned crossbenchers in both houses thinking of blocking or amending key measures, as well as those in his own ranks trying to change superannuation policy, that he was determined to crash through with his budget agenda.

    ….Mr Turnbull promised there would be a thorough and transparent review of the election campaign but he urged all and sundry not to dwell on the past but work hard ……

    http://www.afr.com/news/politics/defiant-malcolm-turnbull-to-crash-through-20160717-gq7t7y

  5. psyclaw @ #902 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 8:34 am

    I saw a USA researcher being interviewed on Sunday, talking about the rise of RWNJ parties all over the globe.
    I only caught part of the interview, unfortunately not including his name, but he appeared to be very measured and sensible.
    In the bit I caught, he made the point that no-one at this stage knows why this has occurred, but he said that certain trends are appearing in research. The first mentioned in each category are less likely to support the RWNJs:
    Educated v Un-educated
    Coastal Dwellers v Inland Dwellers (interesting)
    Digital Era Participants v Non-participants
    I’ll try and find out who he was and seek greater accuracy.

    This makes sense to me as in talking to people who oppose boat people, I see they are often quite open to hearing an alternative viewpoint when I can back it up by showing them one of Media Facts videos debunking false data reported by Channel Nine and show them the Centrelink website. It seems they just need a little prompting to fact check because they often don’t think to do it themselves, instead relying upon urban mythology and hearsay.

    A great deal are swinging xenophobes, susceptible, but not truly xenophobes. They are it seems simply more easily swayed by false information pretending to be factual. That’s the problem with Hanson. She speaks as one who has done her research when she clearly hasn’t. Same goes for lying Libs and much of the media.

  6. Another reason trump was booed at the RNC –

    Wall Street has descended into a state of shock after Donald Trump’s campaign revealed the Republican presumptive presidential nominee would push for the reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall banking law to effectively break up the big banks.

    Mr Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, said at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland on Monday that the party’s official policy platform would advocate a return of the Depression-era law, which was repealed under President Bill Clinton in 1999.

    “We also call for a reintroduction of Glass-Steagall, which created barriers between what big banks can do,” he told reporters.

    The surprise policy shake up by a Republican echoes calls by Democratic socialist presidential contender, Bernie Sanders, for the big banks to be broken up.

    Read more: http://www.afr.com/news/world/north-america/repulican-convention-2016-donald-trump-wants-to-break-up-big-banks-20160718-gq8jvo#ixzz4EnsOEkcV

  7. Funny exchange

    Ancestors
    Ross Cameron
    Jul 17
    Ross Cameron ‏@RossCameron4
    I think gender targets are somewhere between a blunt instrument and an obviously stupid idea. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/sophie-mirabella-returns-to-parliament-to-push-for-more-female-mps-20141216-1283lu.html
    Samantha Maiden
    Samantha Maiden – Verified account ‏@samanthamaiden

    @RossCameron4 @latikambourke gee, well total relief all the blokes are there on merit alone. Pull the other one Roscoe

  8. Cheers Lizzie,
    Love your work.

    Company tax avoidance continues to be a bad joke.
    A company’s primary goal is to make money. Fine.
    To do this it will operate in places that can afford its product.
    Australia is a rich country and has a high standard of living.
    This is because over decades we have developed markets, our social system and the infrastructure to facilitate this.
    Much of this was and is the responsibility of the Government.
    This makes Australia an attractive place for business to operate.
    but
    Setting up and maintaining our social systems and Infrastructure costs money.
    Governments get money mainly by taxation.
    so
    Companies want to take advantage of what we as a country have created which have provided an environment where they can make money
    yet
    they don’t want to pay taxes which will support the maintenance of that environment.

    Short sighted, money grubbing, morally destitute wankers.

    It is an “own-goal” of epic proportions. Ebay Australia has managed to arouse the interest of the Tax Office by suing a former employee and consequently allowing compromising court documents to seep into the public domain.
    http://www.michaelwest.com.au/ebay-scores-own-goal-on-tax/

  9. I havent watched qanda yet, but have gleaned some of the Hanson and Dastyari interaction. In light of this. Found this cute pic

    Tim Dunlop
    11h11 hours ago
    Tim Dunlop ‏@tim_dunlop
    Found it! 5 year old @samdastyari

    LOOK AT HOW ADORABLE HE IS! That sweater, that pose, everything. #qanda

  10. Psyclaw

    Educated v Un-educated
    Coastal Dwellers v Inland Dwellers (interesting)
    Digital Era Participants v Non-participants

    Those on the right hand side of the above three comparisons were not properly addressed by the major parties, and I include the Greens.
    i.e.
    Coalition – talked about Jobs and Growth, a carefully researched slogan but little more. No specifics – I mean we can’t all build submarines. Promoted rapid change as exciting, effectively alienating those who for various reasons don’t feel the opportunity is for them.
    Labor– They should have credibility on the jobs side, but provided little detail. Instead stuck to services like Medicare and Education. A good start, but only goes half way to addressing how those missing out could be catered for jobs wise in a rapidly changing economy, which is the major source of fear.
    Greens Need more specific policies for inclusion e.g. specifics on reduced cost of electricity from renewables, major expansion of ranger program for indigenous communities, specifics on expansion of fibre in rural areas, siting of Solar PV projects, and possibly a guaranteed minimum wage.

  11. Tingle – I’m looking forward to re-reading this article and that of Coorey above (#905 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 8:47 am ) in several months time —

    …….No wonder Malcolm Turnbull didn’t reveal his ministry list until well after the first post-election Coalition party room meeting, or even ring people to tell them of his plans.

    Nothing like keeping people guessing to help maintain order at such an outing, after a considerable amount of chest beating and white anting in the days after July 2 when the shape of the result was not clear.

    It’s a great way to ensure people behave themselves, which is what they all ended up doing. There was chief grumbler Eric Abetz up the front enthusiastically clapping the prime minister in front of the cameras. Superannuation? It hardly got a mention.

    As it turned out, if the conservatives thought that the prime minister might feel a bit vulnerable, a bit like he needed to placate them in the ministerial reshuffle, they were badly mistaken.

    Read more: http://www.afr.com/news/politics/malcolm-turnbull-delivers-a-small-lesson-in-prime-ministerial-authority-20160718-gq8fdq#ixzz4EnubRzyW

  12. Dave

    Prime ministerial authority? You mean the guy that forked out a few million dollars during election campaign to get himself elected!!! Fmd

  13. Labor should push a multiparty private members bill on same sex marriage and have a vote in the House asap.
    With the next House/half Senate election as little as two years away I can see there not being a plebiscite (bad idea) in this Parliament.

    Malcolm Turnbull has suggested the plebiscite on same-sex marriage may not take place until early next year now, rather than this year.
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jul/18/turnbull-suggests-marriage-equality-plebiscite-may-be-delayed-until-2017

  14. Someone asked earlier re the seat of Herbert. Count finished yesterday with Labor ahead by 8 votes. recount of seat will be done today

  15. Cartoons for today. The Fairfax cartoons are getting quite tricky to find.

    Cathy Wilcox with a couple on the current world situation:

    An older one from Kudelka, which I haven’t seen before. Fake Tradie again:

    ?w=900

    Tandberg on discipline in the Liberal party

    Matt Golding on Melbourne traffic:

    Matt Golding on coffee beans – there is context here I don’t have.

    And on Wuthering Heights day:

  16. Similarly Simon Benson in the DT is reasonably critical of Turnbull’s ministry announcement, titled “Unable to please everyone, Turnbull pleases himself”.
    Benson criticizes the demonotion of Small Business from Cabinet, especially after the campaign, apparently Turnbull said “all of my ministers are small business ministers”.
    Also the stripping of responsibility from the 2 women ministers.
    For the Daily Telegraph this is searing criticism.

  17. Dave

    RW Commentators were dropping hints everywhere for Turnbull to give Abbott a portfolio. I can understand why he didnt. But if he and others think that he and his fellow travellers are going to go quietly into the night, they are more stupid than I even thought. And the idea that Turnbull paid his way during election campaign, will have only pissed them off even more

  18. Morning all.

    Just a drive-by as I’m running late for work. Love The Shovel, from last night’s Qanda when Hanson was stunned to learn Dastyari was muslin:

    Saying it was becoming too easy for some people to hide their Muslim identity, One Nation Leader Pauline Hanson has called for the implementation of an identification badge or symbol to be worn by Muslims in Australia.

    The plea comes after Ms Hanson’s appearance on Q&A, where she realised she had been tricked into thinking Labor Senator Sam Dastyari was not Muslim.

    The firebrand politician said there are a number of ways the identification system could work. “Maybe it’s a badge. Maybe it’s a small piece of cloth that they pin on their shirt. It doesn’t have to be complicated. We just need to know where they are”.

    She will table the idea in the Senate later this year.

    http://www.theshovel.com.au/2016/07/19/hanson-calls-for-new-system-to-more-easily-identify-muslims/

  19. From the Tingle article linked by Dave at 9.05

    After all the talk about the prime minister’s diminishing authority, he has shaped the ministry the way he wants it and got through a potentially difficult first meeting with his party on the front foot – giving his colleagues access to an extensive briefing on why a much criticised campaign was run as it was run, and leaving open the prospect for backroom input to spell out policy concerns on super.

    I’m astonished at how even senior and actually competent journalists miss the elephant in the room when it comes to Malcolm love. The most obvious thing about the new Coalition Ministry is how nobody, but nobody, was demoted or sacked. Only Colbeck, who is unlikely to come back to Parliament anyway, is worse off front-bench wise than immediately before the election.

    This was not a PM exerting his authority but one who was terrified of making new enemies by punishing anyone. There was simply no way he could fit anyone else in Cabinet without looking obviously obsequious to the right wing of his party.

    They won’t be happy. But he is probably smart enough to know that if he invited more into the tent they would just fill up on the grog and then go outside and piss into the tent anyway.

  20. barney in saigon @ #915 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 9:08 am

    Labor should push a multiparty private members bill on same sex marriage and have a vote in the House asap.
    With the next House/half Senate election as little as two years away I can see there not being a plebiscite (bad idea) in this Parliament.

    Malcolm Turnbull has suggested the plebiscite on same-sex marriage may not take place until early next year now, rather than this year.
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jul/18/turnbull-suggests-marriage-equality-plebiscite-may-be-delayed-until-2017

    Agreed. I can’t see the plebiscite happening either. He will probably take a plebsicite to the next election again.

  21. Zoomster and Nicole
    When I made my post I used hypothetical people not myself. The point I was trying to make is that each one of us – labor, Green or one nation have about 5 really high priority issues and a larger number of lower order issues. Of course some may have 6 or 7 hot issues and some only one, but my general point is that we each see others from our own individual perspectives. I named 5 of the most likely hot button issues for labor people but could just as easily have added education and Gonski, NDIS, NBN, SSM or a Carbon Price which will certainly be hot button issues for some but not all ALP members.

    My point is that it is just the same for greens, Liberal or One Nation voters. Since this is mostly about greens, it seems to me that most of their typical hot button issues are those that labor is weak on.

    I am sorry Nicole, because i think we probably think alike on many issues, but labor’s position of Asylum seekers is currently practically the same as that of the liberals, just as it is on the anti – terror laws. Now I have great sympathy for the reasons Labor chose to be weak on these issues, especially with an opponent such as Abbott, but the fact remains that the ALP is now very, very, very weak on these issues and is in lock step with the Liberals (especially on national security, meta data etc).

    So IF you are a green member and civil liberties and human rights and maybe US alliance and free trade are your hot button issues, you will in fact perceive little or no difference between the Liberals and Labor. Sure you and I might think it unfair, but if these are the issues that you feel most passionately about, then you will discount the other great things labor stands for.

    My point is really to get sane people such as yourselves to look at the big picture to consider why some Greens are hostile to Labor. It works in reverse of course with a significant ( but hopefully small) group of labor people equating Greens with communists, because for this group of ALPers, issues such as free trade, US alliance, supporting Israel, anti SSM (there still are some), anti terror are super hot button issues.

    The actual reality of course is that Greens and Labor share about 70-80% of common goals while a good section of the ALP probably are closer to 90% of Greens goals and another section of labor people sharing perhaps just 50%. Similarly there are probably about 5% of issues which Greens share with Liberals but not Labor and another 5% they share with Katter or Xenophon but no others, while Labor has about 20-30% of issues it shares with Liberals not Greens.

    The thing is if you happen to be red hot about those issues which labor and Liberals share in common you will see no difference.

    Of course the reality is that we KNOW from voting and preferences that 83% of greens voters recognise the commonality of goals between Labor and Greens. This election will tell us whether this holds true also for Labor voters.

  22. lizzie @ #925 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 9:24 am

    The largest government in the nation’s history?
    More expensive and less talented than ever.

    Actually the large Cabinet is completely logical.

    Malcolm, to his credit, recognising the limited intellectual abilities of his Party has tried to simplify and reduce the workload required.

    Unfortunately he doesn’t have enough Members and Senators to make that strategy effective, also it requires including more females.

  23. nicole @ #930 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 9:30 am

    barney in saigon @ #915 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 9:08 am

    Labor should push a multiparty private members bill on same sex marriage and have a vote in the House asap.
    With the next House/half Senate election as little as two years away I can see there not being a plebiscite (bad idea) in this Parliament.

    Malcolm Turnbull has suggested the plebiscite on same-sex marriage may not take place until early next year now, rather than this year.
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jul/18/turnbull-suggests-marriage-equality-plebiscite-may-be-delayed-until-2017

    Agreed. I can’t see the plebiscite happening either. He will probably take a plebsicite to the next election again.

    Labor and, I hope, the Greens will keep this issue boiling away until it is finally dealt with. Turnbull will not be allowed to put it on the backburner.

  24. For statistics enthusiasts. The Turnbull Ministry.

    australianpolitics.com/2016/07/18/second-turnbull-ministry-statistical-analysis.html

  25. Former Victorian Liberal state director Damien Mantach has been jailed for almost three years for stealing more than $1.5 million from his party.

    Mantach pleaded guilty to 15 charges of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage after it was discovered he had diverted $1,558,913 from Liberal party coffers using fake invoices.

    Mantach was on Tuesday sentenced to five years in jail, with a non-parole period of two years and eight months, by Victorian County Court judge Liz Gaynor.

    Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/07/19/03/34/vic-liberal-to-be-punished-over-theft#qqJ4DiwiIQR3wZKK.99

  26. So that’s three broken promises from MT so far.

    1) That the election was a choice between ‘A Stable Coalition government’ and ‘Labor Greens Independent Chaos’, followed by getting as many agreements as he could with independents when it looked like it might be necessary.

    2) That his ministry would be the same after the election (seriously, why do politicians promise things that are so far out of their own control, it just makes them look foolish).

    3) That we would have the marriage equality plebicite in 2016. I’m sure, when 2017 rolls about, MT will announce that $130 million is too much to spend because the economy is wrecked, and we can’t afford marriage equality right now (of course, ignoring the free option of a free vote in parliament on the matter).

    Off to a flying start…

  27. I commented earlier that if Turnbull had a backbone he should clear out the Howard deadwood and say basically support me or I will call another HOR only election and you lot can sink or swim. LO just a jelly fish no influence no support and six mths to survive. It will be painful for all least of all but mostly the country.

  28. C@tmomma,
    I have made a start on the cartoons, but did not find much new up from Fairfax. You might have mire luck.

  29. TPOF –

    I’m astonished at how even senior and actually competent journalists miss the elephant in the room when it comes to Malcolm love.

    ……………………………………………………………………

    Laura Tingle has carried her candle for turnbull for ages and still does so – even though she is one of the best of the CPG.

    Just retain a copy of the article for when the monkey pod strike back.

    turnbull doesn’t have much of a buffer to avoid being in minority government – (assuming Labor retain Herbert on the recount) when RWNJ bad blood comes front and centre again – or Newspoll does its fortnightly work.

  30. To sum up the three Greens lies perpetrated by Waters last night:

    1. Labor and the Coalition are the same.
    2. Labor, being a big party just like the Coalition, went backwards in this election.
    3. Labor does not have policy for decarbonising the economy.
    And what were the Greens’ posters response to these lies being pointed out?
    A trip up de Nile.
    There was another Big Greens Con Job perpetuated by Waters last night.
    What the Greens will do about x, y and z.
    When she knows perfectly well that the Greens will never form government.

  31. Re Tassie, Abetz was crying poor about lack of representation in the ministry in the SMH, however it was his doing that demoted Colbeck to the fifth spot.
    When you look at it Tassie has more Senators than house of reps seats.

  32. The Hanson exchange with Dastyari just highlights how fixed she is in her own opinion of the world and that she is not willing to listen to or educate herself in other opinions.

    She goes onto a show like Q & A and does not even find out about the other guests and what they stand for and where they come from.

    To me it highlights her willful ignorance.

  33. Dave at 9.05 linking the Tingle article:
    Tingle alleges Turnbull kept his ministerial colleagues in the dark about his Ministerial plans.
    […….No wonder Malcolm Turnbull didn’t reveal his ministry list until well after the first post-election Coalition party room meeting, or even ring people to tell them of his plans.

    Nothing like keeping people guessing to help maintain order at such an outing, after a considerable amount of chest beating and white anting in the days after July 2 when the shape of the result was not clear.]

    I suspect the truth is otherwise and that it was only Tingle (and perhaps her contacts) who were in the dark.

    I say this because I have the misfortune of having Frydenberg as my MP. In the fortnight before election day, having previously been swept with electioneering litter, Josh strangely asked to meet his local constituents whilst going out of his way to spruik his environmental credentials.
    As Josh was, and probably still is, a spokesman for the Peabody Coal line asserting the moral imperative for coal, I found his reversion to any interest in the environment very odd indeed.
    It is now apparent to me he had been given the nod pre-election and was getting to work to try and get across some of the public trigger points, at least in his electorate. So that Prime Ministerial call was not made recently Laura.

  34. As mentioned earlier, the tory commentariat have been telling Turnbull to give Abbott a portfolio. Last Friday and again yesterday they have big pieces on Turnbull’s millions going into campaign. Turnbull announces his ministry sans Abbott. I await next instalment

  35. daretotread @ #931 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 9:35 am

    Zoomster and Nicole
    When I made my post I used hypothetical people not myself. The point I was trying to make is that each one of us – labor, Green or one nation have about 5 really high priority issues and a larger number of lower order issues. Of course some may have 6 or 7 hot issues and some only one, but my general point is that we each see others from our own individual perspectives. I named 5 of the most likely hot button issues for labor people but could just as easily have added education and Gonski, NDIS, NBN, SSM or a Carbon Price which will certainly be hot button issues for some but not all ALP members.
    My point is that it is just the same for greens, Liberal or One Nation voters. Since this is mostly about greens, it seems to me that most of their typical hot button issues are those that labor is weak on.
    I am sorry Nicole, because i think we probably think alike on many issues, but labor’s position of Asylum seekers is currently practically the same as that of the liberals, just as it is on the anti – terror laws. Now I have great sympathy for the reasons Labor chose to be weak on these issues, especially with an opponent such as Abbott, but the fact remains that the ALP is now very, very, very weak on these issues and is in lock step with the Liberals (especially on national security, meta data etc).
    So IF you are a green member and civil liberties and human rights and maybe US alliance and free trade are your hot button issues, you will in fact perceive little or no difference between the Liberals and Labor. Sure you and I might think it unfair, but if these are the issues that you feel most passionately about, then you will discount the other great things labor stands for.
    My point is really to get sane people such as yourselves to look at the big picture to consider why some Greens are hostile to Labor. It works in reverse of course with a significant ( but hopefully small) group of labor people equating Greens with communists, because for this group of ALPers, issues such as free trade, US alliance, supporting Israel, anti SSM (there still are some), anti terror are super hot button issues.
    The actual reality of course is that Greens and Labor share about 70-80% of common goals while a good section of the ALP probably are closer to 90% of Greens goals and another section of labor people sharing perhaps just 50%. Similarly there are probably about 5% of issues which Greens share with Liberals but not Labor and another 5% they share with Katter or Xenophon but no others, while Labor has about 20-30% of issues it shares with Liberals not Greens.
    The thing is if you happen to be red hot about those issues which labor and Liberals share in common you will see no difference.
    Of course the reality is that we KNOW from voting and preferences that 83% of greens voters recognise the commonality of goals between Labor and Greens. This election will tell us whether this holds true also for Labor voters.

    I really appreciate you taking the time to elaborate on where you were coming from and believe me I do understand the perspective of those left of field who feel unrepresented by the major parties because I was one of them and still have quite a lot of friends over that fence. That’s probably why it’s a big deal to me because I see I was wrong and hasty and just needed to look a little deeper.

    By the way I do care a great deal about asylum seekers and social justice issues. I fell off my chair when Rudd announced the no person arriving by boat will be settled in Australia. I was in shock. At first I thought it was an act of pragmatism and pandering to the polls, the media, a sell out. I was angry and thought that was the only explanation but I decided to speak up and talk to people about it. I was lucky to speak to the right people who had been long time advocates and took the time to explain the underlying issues.

    Then I researched myself and discussed further until I too became convinced we could not allow that route to stay open. It did not mean abandoning them, leaving them to rot in indefinite detention, demonizing, secrecy, breaking international laws, not honoring the declaration, giving naval vessels to Sri Lanka to prevent people fleeing. It did not mean becoming a sociopathic, heartless, ambition before people kind of party. I finally came to see that Labor have got the best asylum seeker policies. That’s what I tell my friends and it is because they know me and know I care a great deal that they listen and see it is not lockstep even while it may seem harsh. See I told you I’m a bleeding heart. 😀

Leave a Reply

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