I’m afraid in depth analysis of the result will have to wait until I’ve slept for just about the first time in 48 hours. I’ll just observe that that BludgerTrack thing on the sidebar isn’t looking too flash right now, to which the best defence I can offer is that aggregators gonna aggregate. Basically every poll at the end of the campaign showed Labor with a lead of 51.5-48.5, and so therefore did BludgerTrack – whereas it looks like the final result will end up being more like the other way around. The much maligned seat polling actually wound up looking better than the national ones, though it was all too tempting at the time to relate their pecularities to a past record of leaning in favour of the Coalition. However, even the seat polls likely overstated Labor’s position, though the number crunching required to measure how much by will have to wait for later.
Probably the sharpest piece of polling analysis to emerge before the event was provided by Mark the Ballot, who offered a prescient look at the all too obvious fact that the polling industry was guilty of herding – and, in this case, it was herding to the wrong place. In this the result carries echoes of the 2015 election in Britain, when polling spoke in one voice of an even money bet between the Conservatives and Labour, when the latter’s vote share on the day proved to be fully 6% higher. This resulted in a period of soul-searching in the British polling industry that will hopefully be reflected in Australia, where pollsters are far too secretive about their methods and provide none of the breakdowns and weighting information that are standard for the more respected pollsters internationally. More on that at a later time.
So Labor is likely to have the lowest PV in 90 years but its the murdering, raping Australian people who are at fault.
If this attitude is wide spread it will be a long time before the ALP again gains government
A_E
Thanks for the invite but I am going to give politics a rest now.
I don’t think I could cope with another three years of Di Natale ‘holding Labor to account’, (not the Liberals to account) which was one of his main fatuous selling points in his launch address.
After the 2016 election Di Natale promised his followers that it was the Greens intention to form government. After the 2019 election all environmentalists in the Greens Party should now understand one thing: by splitting the left effort in every sense of the word, they are a huge gift to such wonders as Minister Price.
Boerwar. Mate I get where you are com8ng from with the Greens, but you are only half right. Those 2 in 10 voters Greens who didn’t preference Labor never were Labor voters in the first place: they are disaffected Liberals who have broken ‘progressive’ rather than RWNJ.
There’s been some ALP party research into the Melbourne Greens after the 2016 election that establishes that fact clearly. That’s OK – just another fact to take into account when calibrating Labor’s future plans.
Rex: you have said Labor needs to reform as a progresssive party sans its union base. That’s daft. There is plenty of scope for you to go ahead and do that yourselves without Labor’s immolation. Plenty of tried before. None have succeeded. Even the greens are stuck between 8-12%.
Unions keep Labor real. It doesn’t matter to the political movement that unions only represent 10-15%of the workforce. That workforce is diverse and spread across the whole of Australia. That’s a potential database of 2 million voices. Without tapping into the views of those voices, Labor would be just like every other failed pogressive movement: a rabble of elitist intellectuals, pensioners, conmen and dreamers.
The unions established Labor 130 years ago because the movement realised that industrial action wasn’t sufficient to ‘get it done’ in terms of the betterment of the ordinary citizen. Since then the ALP formula has always been “Unions Plus Common Interest from outside the movement = progress”. That formula remains intact, but there obviously needs to be a reexamination of its constituent parts.
That’s it. I’m definitely outta here.
Labor can’t have both.
Coal mining/exportation or real climate change policy…. ?
Victoria could have had cheap brown coal electricity for hundreds of years but we are closing them down. It’s cost us plenty.
The LNP has just won an amazing Election victory yet according to all the Insiders Panel and Julie Bishop the LNP must massively change its’ policies on Climate Change.
Because they won?
WTF?
The Envirocatastrophists just don’t learn – which is good. Keep on losing.
Boerwar @ #651 Sunday, May 19th, 2019 – 12:24 pm
You need to contemplate where you stand. Coal mining/exportation or real climate change policy… ?
Wow. Labor really blew it didn’t they. I bet they wish they’d listened to their rank and file and picked Albo as leader now.
Even though he failed to win over the public, I want to pay tribute to the way Shorten spoke last night. It was one of the best concession speeches I’ve seen. He held himself together well despite probably being in shock. It can’t be easy to lose like that when you’ve been told for years that you’re assured of victory. He went out with class and dignity.
I still can’t get my head around the result. How can so many people vote for a government that has been such a failure?
Palmer spent tens of millions of dollars buying the election for Morrison. It is rather funny though that his party seems likely to have missed out on winning anything for themselves.
The Greens had a pretty good night and we are in a very strong position to retain all our senators. That’s a fantastic result, especially considering everyone was writing us off as usual. The huge increase in Sarah Hanson-Young’s vote in SA was particularly awesome to see, as was Adam Bandt tightening his grip on the seat of Melbourne.
One very bright ray of sunshine last night was seeing Abbott given the boot! Now that was enjoyable! If only the rest of the country had the same mood for change as the people in Warringah did.
“Thanks for the invite but I am going to give politics a rest now.“
No problems, but if you change your mind, you know where to find me. Rather than discuss politics per se, I’m more interested in your life experiences which seem diverse and I reckon quite informative.
Cheers A
Steven Hail has a good take on the election.
“You need to contemplate where you stand. Coal mining/exportation or real climate change policy… ?”
So, how do you change anything of you’re not in power?
How are the Greens going to stop Adani now?
Just to change the subject a bit. It will take some days for the Senate results to become clear, but early signs from Tasmania are instructive.
You will recall that, as in 2016, the Tasmanian ALP decided to relegate the highly talented Lisa Singh on the ticket in order to advance the aspirations of the local AMWU leader to enjoy the sort of semi-retirement on the Senate benches that so many other former union leaders have achieved before him (with the honorable exception of Doug Cameron, who, while I don’t much like his politics, undeniably worked hard to achieve something in his time in the Senate).
The result of the local ALP’s actions is that it looks like the third seat that they might have won with Singh has gone not to the AMWU guy, but to Jacqui Lambie.
Great work Tasmanian ALP! Another feather in your cap to go with your excellent campaigning in Bass and Braddon, where your signs for your candidates seem to have been outnumbered by the Libs by about 3 to 1.
Boerwar, it’s not the greens splitting the left vote, it’s the alp splitting the left vote.
‘Oakeshott Country says:
Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 12:24 pm
So Labor is likely to have the lowest PV in 90 years but its the murdering, raping Australian people who are at fault.
If this attitude is wide spread it will be a long time before the ALP again gains government’
Apart from the left wedgies, sundry spoilers and Kill Bill from the Greens, the clearest outcome from this election is that the Right has finally found out how to foment and harness racism.
The other clear message is that large numbers of voters are prepared to allow themselves to be scared of death taxes, retiree taxes, house taxes, etc, etc, etc.
It might have cost them$60 million in ads, but it worked. We should all feel grateful that the Commie Chinese invasion will now be halted.
It is difficult to foresee how Labor is going to address this any time soon.
Their only real chance is if there is a catastrophic economic collapse during a Coalition Government. Clearly the various Global Warming catastrophes (drought aid of $7 billion, and counting) were not enough to shift the vote.
meher baba
Many people affected by the loss of franking credits actually should have been claiming a part aged pension. I think they were properly scared into voting Liberal rather getting sound financial advice.
I know a couple that gifted money 3 years ago so they have to wait til 2020 to get a part pension. Another woman who was advised to apply for a part aged pension but she was resisting. I know a few other women whom I suspect should apply for the Aged pension to increase their income.
I am unhappy that franking credits could be grandfathered for all existing retirees because there are 500 super accounts with balances over $20m (ATO press release – Friday)
Maybe retirees should pay income tax at the same marginal rates as PAYG taxpayers
Luke @ #553 Sunday, May 19th, 2019 – 11:49 am
Fortunately real ALP members are nothing like some of the bizarre faux ALP supporters on PB.
I think most would just get laughed at if they attended most ALP branches I know of.
Boerwar @ #546 Sunday, May 19th, 2019 – 9:46 am
You start by noting that Labor only needed that 20% of Greens preferences (ie 2% of 2PP) to form government, in other words 100% of Greens preferences would’ve got Labor over the line.
You then blame Greens voters for not voting 100% for Labor on first preferences, when a mere 20% of SECOND preferences would’ve done the trick..
I’ll quote your own words back at you to prove my point:
That 2% would be enough for Australia to be forming a Labor government.
‘Luke says:
Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 12:30 pm
Boerwar: It’s not the greens splitting the left vote, it’s the alp splitting the left vote.’
Hey little splinter, how are you enjoying the fact that 90% of the voters won’t have a bar of you?
Andrew Earlwood,
The Union Membership is not wide and diverse. It is narrow and insular based on the Public Service at all levels and industries that have historically militant unions that are organised under EBAs.
The vast majority of Australians are not in Unions and do not relate to them.
But don’t let me stop you thinking you are correct and have all the answers.
Dan
You have misunderstood me and this has caused you to run an argument against a straw man.
What I am saying is that if 100% of Greens voters had voted for Labor, Labor would now be forming government.
The rest follows from that.
Boerwar @ #556 Sunday, May 19th, 2019 – 9:49 am
😆
Like others, I am likely to become an infrequent visitor here for a while – don’t worry William, I’ll keep my subscription going because I know the new govt will do things that will make me want to vent!
But this result, for me, has shaken my trust in the ‘better angels of human nature’ and I need to withdraw and think on that a little.
In 20/20 hindsight, Labor made an error when its consequences were already written stark in history. Get incumbency first. Then introduce some incremental changes. Then win another election and push through more. Hewson made the same mistake as Labor in 1993 with Fightback!, to the same ‘surprising’ conclusion. Yet Howard got the GST through 5 years later via incrementalism. Anyway I doubt Labor will make this mistake again. Never underestimate the selfishness of the electorate, and never scare the horses.
I would be curious to hear from a Greens supporter whether they think that six years of Greens’ Kill Bill had any effect?
Whether Di Natale’s grandstanding in relation to Labor during the election had any effect?
Whether the Adani convoy and related wedging had any effect on Labor’s vote in Queensland?
They seem to have reduced the Greens share of the vote.
Did they also reduce Labor’s share of the vote?
No?
The LNP climate policy, as much as it was, was based on no job losses. Any party that wants to win government has to clearly go on saying the same, no matter how impossible it is in practice.
Boer, you’re the splitter
‘jenauthor says:
Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 12:34 pm
Like others, I am likely to become an infrequent visitor here for a while – don’t worry William, I’ll keep my subscription going because I know the new govt will do things that will make me want to vent!
But this result, for me, has shaken my trust in the ‘better angels of human nature’ and I need to withdraw and think on that a little.’
See you Jen. Moi aussi. What’s left of life is too short.
This election proves the following
Never stand between an aspirational voter and a tax rort
Fear and ignorance will always triumph over hope
People say they are happy to pay more taxes for better services but always vote the other way
The Green voters who preference Liberals would never vote ALP if there were no Greens party and why Boerwar thinks they are lost votes to the ALP is a mystery to me.
Since about 20 percent of Greens voters prefer the LNP over the ALP, it is stupid to say, “If 100 percent of Greens voters had voted for the ALP…” That was never a possibility.
If 100 percent of Labor frontbenchers were macroeconomically literate, they would have a much more relevant and appealing policy platform.
I did note WB excellent posture during the 9 coverage. It was a little bit distracting having his Grecian profile in the background.
Albo had better get ready for the Greens to join the rest of the pack to Kill Albo and Lib Lab same old same old.
Albo had better get ready for Di Natale to leech on him at the next election.
Because that is exactly what happened in this election and it is exactly what will happen in the next election.
Boerwar @ #672 Sunday, May 19th, 2019 – 12:36 pm
Labor needs to own the desertion of their voters in Queensland to PHON and Clive.
I see some of the Labor folks here are straight into blaming the Greens for their own failures as usual. I’m not going to kick you while you’re down. You’re in shock and are looking for somewhere to put your anger and frustration. Labor just lost what should have been an unloseable election.
@ Amaranthus
I agree. Coalition got in due to Labor going after big end of town while they are in Opposition.
There is a lesson to be learnt, learn from it.
Offer smaller policies, and big policies, just stay away from anything taxes.
Coalition Party used that twice on Labor now. First the Carbon Price, now taxing voters.
Even though it was clearly said it was not that, people are dumb.
BW pretends to speak to cephalopods. I think we can discount his analysis on the Greens.
Haha. Those Labor folk blaming the Greens have been doing so for years. It’s not shock.
I would not be surprised if Albo announces his refusal to contest and impending retirement. His personal life is a little messy at the moment and he has been doing politics for a long, long time.
Environmental protection in this country is thousands of years old, the labour movement cropped up about 130 years ago, splintering the vote. I think it’s time for the insurgents to come back into the green fold and stop splitting the left vote so we can finally get real action.
Boerwar @ #672 Sunday, May 19th, 2019 – 12:36 pm
BW.
I understand you are upset, as much as I am. But there is no need to blame Greens for the mess Labor is in.
You need to gain power first before changing the system.
Once you in power, you have a mandate.
@Luke
Labor is founded on worker rights, not environment rights.
So BW, you agree that the Australian people are unworthy of a Shorten government
Let’s pass a motion of no confidence in the people and get a new one (Brecht, I think)
I think Rex is right, but he’s drawing the wrong conclusion. Labor lost their working class base to LNP and ONP because their messaging focused too much on progressive and big-picture issues and not on the simple concerns that these people have: jobs and the cost of living.
Labor need to remember that those issues must always come first. They need to frame their progressive agenda through that prism (continually push renewable energy jobs, lowering impact on power prices, etc.). This is how they need to communicate their message to keep these people on board.
Leave the Greens to push the bigger picture argument about climate change and to fight the culture wars.
I think Labor and the Greens can exist alongside each other targeting a different audience and selling a different message but ultimately bringing those two different groups together in their common progressive causes. Labor’s messaging the last 6 years has been too focused on the educated and socially progressive and not the less well off who its policies have always been designed to protect.
billie: “I am unhappy that franking credits could be grandfathered for all existing retirees because there are 500 super accounts with balances over $20m (ATO press release – Friday)”
Didn’t that press release come out on a Friday in 2016?
From 2017, the Turnbull Government restricted the maximum size of superannuation accounts to $1.6 million per taxpayer.
And this points to a number of problems with Labor’s tax and retirement income policies: they all seem to have been based on papers released by the Grattan Institute several years back: before the Libs signficantly tightened up superannuation policy and before the housing market went right off the boil.
If Labor had achieved government, they would have had access to Treasury advice in order to refine and develop these policies in a way that would have made them much better and more publicly acceptable. For instance, as far as I can see from the data, there are two main groups of people accessing the franking credit: a large group of retirees living partly or wholly on a modest amount of income derived from share dividends, and a small group of people who, at least before Turnbull’s changes, were using self-managed super as part of a tax minimisation strategy. Treasury would have been able to have helped Labor design a policy that might have targeted the latter group without having too adverse an effect on the smaller group.
And this is an example of why oppositions would always do better not to run with taxation policies.
Michael Leunig on the end of an Abbott era.
https://www.facebook.com/MichaelLeunigAppreciationPage/photos/a.175075612678666/1077162735803278/?type=3&theater
William (You are probably still asleep after all your hard work – thanks)
Working this morning has been in no way much help for me!
I think the one of the biggest problems in polling is referenced by King O’Malley above (1149am) – the “don’t knows” and “don’t answers”.
The first polls I remember when young from memory had things like “Labor 40%, Liberal 40%, Country 5%, Other 5%, Don’t know 10%”. Then they just started dropping off the ‘don’t know’ and rebalancing the rest to a new total of 100 – so in this case it became “Labor 44, Liberal 44, Country 6, Others 6”. At the time I remember thinking I suppose they are assuming the ‘don’t know’ people (because they have to vote) will end up splitting pretty much the same as the responders. Possibly a dangerous assumption.
Of course now polls are very rarely reported like that (occasionally I note in the fine print somewhere it is mentioned) – I think in some recent ones this number was quite high. And the pollsters themselves can be a bit pushy especially when it comes to the TPP decision, that is when it is done non-robocall.
In the lead-up to the 2020 US Presidential election Nate Silver was being derided by many other pseph ‘experts’ in the USA because he was saying that Trump had about a one in three chance of winning the election. Part of his reasoning and algorithm was that the higher number of ‘don’t knows’ made Clinton’s polling lead less reliable and stable than Obama’s smaller lead at the same time in 2012. Another part of his reasoning was that for the electoral college he didn’t treat individual states as independent events – if for example one Rustbelt state were to go ‘against’ what the polls said then it was likely that there were systematic errors with the methodology etc (or maybe a late localised swing) and this would likely carry over into neighbouring states.
While some other well-known psephs had Clinton’s chance of winning very high (even up to 99%), Silver stuck by his arguments and was vindicated.
On the second issue of non-independent events, I think that is something to take into account when looking at different states in what looms as a close election. I believed Labor would win AND lose seats in both NSW and Queensland. It did happen in NSW, but I imagine Nate Silver would have said that if Labor loses any in Queensland it more likely reflects a state-wide swing against them meaning they would make zero gains.
So I know in Bludgertrack you take account of differences in state votes and swings – it would be hard to add a rider ‘bandwagon’ type of effect that reset the scales and accounted for this sort of possibility. I suppose you could take into account some of these individual seat polls (previously found to be not that helpful) in the same way Silver uses Statewide polls, because with only six states and two territories we generally only have nationwide polls, with state ‘polls’ teased out of the datasets of several consecutive national polls.
Such a model wouldn’t be designed to give a final TPP, rather it would be designed to give a “fuzzy logic” seat count probability curve and thus a ‘percent chance of winning’. I realise others such as Marktheballot produce such curves but they are like the other psephs in the USA, treating each seat as an independent event given such-and-such national TPP +/- state TPP. Not wanting to criticize Mark as he clearly has extraordinary statistical acumen and was very much calling into question the ‘under-dispersion’ of the polls during the campaign.
@Zoidlord
Yeah, but it’s split the left vote. Workers rights are just one component of a true progressive government. We need more than just a single issue protest party like the ALP. Time for the ALP to fold back into the wider movement and stop splitting the left vote. (sorry couldn’t resist)
Hi bludgers. Oh, what a sorry state I am in. I was in a relatively buoyant mood yesterday, thinking Labor was an odds-on shoo-in.
The only good moment was seeing Tony Abbott lose his seat of Warringah. I always thought that if that happened, I’d be hand-springing around the TV, but I was too depressed by the election’s overall outcome to feel high-spirited at all.
Everyone always likes to be an expert in hindsight, but I have to say I was always just a little nervous about the attack ads and attack talking points coming from the Libs, Murdoch rags and Clive Palmer’s full-page anti-Labor ads adorning the papers the week before. There seemed to be little Labor push-back.
Why for instance, didn’t Labor highlight the restoration of Sunday penalty rates and the affordability of child-care? Why didn’t Labor talk wages, wages, wages until we were sick of hearing about it?
I know, everyone an expert after the fact. But I think it’s worth talking about and exploring what could be done differently.
One other thing that disturbed me during the election campaign was the under-reporting of it by our intrepid media. It reminded me of 2001, when election stories would get pointers on the front pages of papers and be buried on page 5 or 8. Even our ABC seemed more interested in a truck accident on the M4 or someone being found guilty in court than in that day’s policy announcement.
I don’t know what we can do to get more people and the media re-engaged in politics, but I think that would make a difference.
On what passes for an upside, the overall result seems to be status quo: Coalition 76; Labor 69 and six cross-benchers. Not quite a landslide to the Libs, which certainly puts Labor in contention for the next election.
Not much of a consolation I know, but the only way forward is to look to the future and its possibilities.
By the way Andrew Earlwood, I think your post about Labor’s relationship with the Greens and the union movement was spot on.
I get a vote. Chalmers and Keneally for me, they speak well.
Pleased to hear it, Nath. Apparently I was prone to slouching early in my television career.