The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age – or the Herald/Age, to adopt what is evidently Nine Newspapers’ own preferred shorthand for its Sydney and Melbourne papers – have revealed their opinion polling will be put on ice for an indefinite period. They usually do that post-election at the best of times, but evidently things are more serious now, such that we shouldn’t anticipate a resumption of its Ipsos series (which the organisation was no doubt struggling to fund in any case).
This is a shame, because Ipsos pollster Jessica Elgood has been admirably forthright in addressing what went wrong – and, importantly, in identifying the need for pollsters to observe greater transparency, a quality that has been notably lacking from the polling scene in Australia. In particular, Elgood has called for the establishment of a national polling standards body along the lines of the British Polling Council, members of which are required to publish details of their survey and weighting methods. This was echoed in a column in the Financial Review by Labor pollster John Utting, who suggests such a body might be chaired by Professor Ian McAllister of the Australian National University, who oversees the in-depth post-election Australian Election Study survey.
On that point, I may note that I had the following to say in Crikey early last year:
The very reason the British polling industry has felt compelled to observe higher standards of transparency is that it would invite ridicule if it sought to claim, as Galaxy did yesterday, that its “track record speaks for itself”. If ever the sorts of failures seen in Britain at the 2015 general election and 2016 Brexit referendum are replicated here, a day of reckoning may arrive that will shine light on the dark corners of Australian opinion polling.
Strange as it may seem though, not everyone is convinced that Australian polling really put on all that bad a show last weekend. Indeed, no less an authority than Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight has just weighed in with the following:
Polls showed the conservative-led coalition trailing the Australian Labor Party approximately 51-49 in the two-party preferred vote. Instead, the conservatives won 51-49. That’s a relatively small miss: The conservatives trailed by 2 points in the polls, and instead they won by 2, making for a 4-point error. The miss was right in line with the average error from past Australian elections, which has averaged about 5 points. Given that track record, the conservatives had somewhere around a 1 in 3 chance of winning.
So the Australian media took this in stride, right? Of course not. Instead, the election was characterized as a “massive polling failure” and a “shock result”.
When journalists say stuff like that in an election after polls were so close, they’re telling on themselves. They’re revealing, like their American counterparts after 2016, that they aren’t particularly numerate and didn’t really understand what the polls said in the first place.
I’m not quite sure whether to take greater umbrage at Silver’s implication that Antony Green and Kevin Bonham “aren’t particularly numerate”, or that the are – huck, spit – “journalists”. The always prescient Dr Bonham managed a pre-emptive response:
While overseas observers like Nate Silver pour scorn on our little polling failure as a modest example of the genre and blast our media for failing to anticipate it, they do so apparently unfamiliar with just how good our national polling has been compared to polling overseas.
And therein lies the rub – we in Australia have been rather spoiled by the consistently strong performance of Newspoll’s pre-election polls especially, which have encouraged unrealistic expectations. On Saturday though, we saw the polls behaving no better, yet also no worse, than polling does generally.
Indeed, this would appear to be true even in the specifically Australian context, so long as we take a long view. Another stateside observer, Harry Enten, has somehow managed to compare Saturday’s performance with Australian polling going all the way back to 1943 (“I don’t know much about Australian politics”, Enten notes, “but I do know something about downloading spreadsheets of past poll data and calculating error rates”). Enten’s conclusion is that “the average error in the final week of polling between the top two parties in the first round” – which I take to mean the primary vote, applying the terminology of run-off voting of the non-instant variety – “has been about five points”.
We are not a selfish lot; but we are stupid.
Labor’s chances were not sunk by self-funded retirees, but by the very voters who stood to benefit most from the ALP’s policies
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/23/self-interest-didnt-swing-the-election-results-but-the-scare-campaign-did
Autocrat, thanks, never having done those things, I didn’t know that.
Zoidlord @ #255 Friday, May 24th, 2019 – 12:20 pm
His work in propping up Bill Shorten for 6 years is done. Well done Kim. Labor thanks you.
Oakeshott Country @ #340 Friday, May 24th, 2019 – 1:42 pm
No it isn’t. The government should receive the full value of the company tax.
I was surprised during the election that there were no ads on the statement that keeping wages low was a deliberate strategy to help the economy. But then my husband has the tv on non stop every day and I watch a couple of hours of catch up tv and over the 5 weeks I did not see I single ALP ad. My Facebook kept sending me links to Andrew Hastie but not to Melissa or any other candidate. Overall a very disappointing selling campaign.
Interesting article from InDaily – although I’m sure it will arouse strong reactions one way or the other on here. Still, Rann has some interesting things to say about political strategy
https://indaily.com.au/news/politics/2019/05/24/ailing-labor-needs-rann-says-party-elder/
I was amused by this:
In 2013 I was disappointed that the caucus went against the vote of the members who wanted Albo. However I was happy to support Bill as the Labor leader.
I think it is clear now though that Albo has delivered more cut through in one day than Bill did in six years.
”Only two of the three represent the avoidance of double taxation; in the third case government has foregone revenue for no good reason.”
That comment must be the silliest of the day.
Only a total moron doesn’t understand that company tax is a downpayment of the tax that the government gets on the profits generated by companies. In most cases that downpayment will be less than the total tax payable on the prifts at marginal individual rates. In other cases it will be less. If it is less, the profits of the company in the hands of the relevant individual should be less than the company rate.
That puts the question to bed. The Labor policy was bad because it completely defied the scheme and logic of the tax legislation. The problem is that Labor people are so totally hung up on the idea that ”corporations” are themselves something other than collections of shareholders. It is the shareholders who in essence bear the tax on the company’s profits.
“The reason why they can’t do this is because they are full of people like Bowen who think “managing the economy” means running a big fat budget surplus.”
You will never sell this quasi-MMT concept to the people. Labor (Bowen) had to play the game, and quite cleverly stated upfront that – should a Labor government need to in the event of an obstructionist Senate – they would forego the surplus in favour of honouring their spending commitments.
What is a Name
Labor should be trying to expose the greed and money grabbing of a Liberal led economy and how it makes most suffer so that wealth can be shared by a few. It requires a redefinition of what good economic management means.
This comment here shows the problem because the message it projects is a hatred of money, by all means the ALP are right to want to punish bad behavior such as seen by the banks but what one person sees as greed is another person’s livelihood, another way of looking at it lets take tradies on construction sites, they enjoy a number of perks, now there is nothing wrong with that but in theory it could be argued they are being greedy but that depends on your view on perks and money.
There is nothing wrong with government distributing wealth after all that is a core job of government but by referring to money has greed shows a lack of finance smarts despite the fact the ALP has a better record during the past forty years besides the period between 1990-1993.
Mexicanbeemer @ #338 Friday, May 24th, 2019 – 1:41 pm
It wasn’t the franking credit issue that cost Labor the election. Labor would be ill-advised in dropping it.
Watermelon @ #323 Friday, May 24th, 2019 – 1:22 pm
re: the Chisholm signage
I take the point about specific sensitivities wrt the Chinese community in Chisholm.
However, I’m firmly of the view that that signage needs to be challenged simply because the AEC itself needs to be kept separated from/immune to this kind of nonsense. Anyone putting out material that could be mistaken for being official AEC material needs to be taught a lesson to stay well away from that kind of thing.
(And yes, that would make the ALP’s earlier signs not ok as well, although those didn’t attempt to deceive voters as to the process of voting, but the ALP not being allowed to do that again is no big deal).
Looks like a total Rupert takeover of the ABC.
Lots of ex NewsCorp bodies accupying key roles.
Agree with Mundo, the ALP need to be out there making it known that its policies have laid the foundation of nearly three decades of growth.
Rococo Liberal @ #358 Friday, May 24th, 2019 – 1:57 pm
The original legislation was turned into a rort for the wealthy, as usual and by the usual suspects. Your sophistry is the typical response.
And also, go fuck yourself.
Assantdj
That seems strange, because almost all the ALP/Union ads I saw all mentioned the line, “keeping wages low is a deliberate part of the LNP’s plan!”.
I’d personally say Jay Weatherill was the better strategist than Mike Rann but whatever. It’s a team, not individual, effort anyway.
Declare purple the neutral colour, make it off-limits and be done with it. Everything from the AEC to be in that colour, with nothing that isn’t permitted to be.
Rex
I think the franking credit issue only contributed to the loss in a handful of seats i.e Robertson, Longman and Flinders not that Flinders was necessarily important for the ALP winning and had little to with the results in north and central Queensland.
Jackol @ #363 Friday, May 24th, 2019 – 2:01 pm
I think I heard on the local Melbourne ABC radio earlier in the week that Oliver Yates was planning to challenge that signage. Can’t easily confirm though.
Is it safe to talk polls?
ABC NewsRadio web poll
Will Anthony Albanese prove to be a strong Labor and Opposition leader?
– no
– they should have made a generational change
– yes
Do you want to hear the results so far?
53 – 26 – 22
from a whopping sample of 323 dodgy layabout political operatives and hacks. And me.
You’d probably have to define it as a specific pantone range, as “purple” can theoretically be used to describe a huge range of colours on the spectrum.
Get off the fence Albo or you’re doomed to failure just like Shorten.
Rossa
There is more to financial management than just making a profit or a surplus, just look at the Amazons of the world, they don’t care for the year to year profit and it could be argued that the government shouldn’t necessarily care for a year to year surplus.
Mexicanbeemer @ #370 Friday, May 24th, 2019 – 2:07 pm
Pretty much… and it was only the poor selling of the policy that caused issues in those seats.
Rational Leftist
Didn’t Cadbury (purple) or some other company have a lawsuit over the use of a certain shade?
No idea.
I do know that, despite the story itself being public domain, all non-MGM Wonderful Wizard of Oz (or spin-off) productions that have featured a green wicked witch of the west, have always used a slightly different tone of green than the MGM movie because of copyright issues (the movie first portrayed her as green, but it became so entrenched in our perception of the character, that having a non-green version wouldn’t seem right.)
Surely Clare O’Neil will be preferred by her colleagues for deputy leader over the factional hack Richard Marles…? This really is a no-brainer, but you never know with Labor.
lizzie
There were CFMEU members asking labor MP’s to sign a pledge that they supported coal. Just more of the rabble trying to pull the cart downhill.
Bit late after the election to finally work it out.
I’m also a bit unclear about what basis challenging that signage should be done – going to the Court of Disputed Returns by candidates alleging that it materially affected the outcome is probably the wrong avenue. I would have hoped that the AEC could have used the legislative powers they have to pronounce it verboten and imposed fines (except that some AEC official on the day said it was hunky-dory, which I still find mind boggling).
ETA: You would think the AEC would be at the forefront of defending the public trust in themselves and their material from this kind of thing.
autocrat says:
Friday, May 24, 2019 at 2:05 pm
…”And also, go fuck yourself”…
Without any sarcasm, I think this kind of the language is the only chance labor has of winning an election ever again.
Every time the idiots say something dumb, tell ’em they are dumb fucks.
Every time they lie, call ’em lying fucks.
etc…
In fact, my nomination for our 2022 campaign slogan:
LABOR
GO FUCK YOURSELF
Rossa says:
Friday, May 24, 2019 at 11:45 am
“Labor should stick with franking credits and negative gearing changes, but look at how to spend the money created in a more effective (vote winning) way.”
Heck, if free cancer treatment and diagnostics, free dental care for pensioners, free solar panels on school halls, encouraging EVs, wage increases, and cheaper childcare aren’t vote winners, what are?
The problem wasn’t that these aren’t vote winners; it’s that not enough people knew about them.
Keep all the policies – they’ll only be even more worthwhile in 2-3 years. And the revenue raising measures will only be even more justified. They certainly can’t lose votes by doing so. Half the people who fell for the “death taxes” nonsense are kicking themselves now. The Liberals will only screw up further. And they’ll preside over a massive recession.
Labor should stand their ground.
__________________________________________________________________
Here, here Rossa.
They are all good policies but we heard little about them during the campaign. I was waiting for the Labor ads highlighting them all and I mainly heard crickets instead.
Hindsight is a wonderful teacher so I don’t claim any special insight. However, I think a possible winning strategy might have been to highlight wages, wages, wages at every turn, reminding voters that Labor would restore Sunday penalty rates, that Labor would go to bat for an immediate rise in the minimum wage and so on.
Mention their other policies, but more as add-ons to the main wages pitch. Shorten did say he wanted to make the election a referendum on wages, but sadly that ball was dropped almost as soon as the campaign started.
“Rossa
There is more to financial management than just making a profit or a surplus, just look at the Amazons of the world, they don’t care for the year to year profit and it could be argued that the government shouldn’t necessarily care for a year to year surplus.”
Oh for sure – but I don’t believe however that there is anyone or any organisation capable of making a majority of voters understand this in time for the next election.
Or the one after that.
Or the one after that.
Therefore Labor have no choice but to play along in the meantime.
Not sure
A the election was lost by those that would have benefited from labor’s policies I think a better slogan would be:
“STOP F**KING YOURSELF
Franking credits is going to be an easy scare campaign at the next election unless Labor stick by the policy AND explain the policy properly to the country. They need to convince people of the need for the change and that the money will be spend in areas that will benefit the country and everyone in it.
Millennial
I do live in a safe Liberal seat in WA but tv is national did the ads only target specific regions
Many people don’t get penalty rates; many voters don’t work on Sunday; many people are not on the minimum wage.
This is just more winners and losers stuff where a modest number of winners from these policies is offset by a lot of people who see no benefit or can be scared into thinking it’s actually a negative for them. I’m not saying increasing the minimum wage is a bad idea, but using it as some sort of election platform is to fall into the same trap as trying to promote wage subsidies just for childcare, removing out of pocket expenses just for cancer treatment, or the patchwork of hard-to-explain losers from franking credits changes.
Plus, IMO Labor shouldn’t be championing ‘restoring Sunday penalty rates’ … why is Sunday more special than Saturday again? Promise to protect weekend and public holiday penalty rates from further erosion, sure, but enshrining mainstream Christian religious day of the week as needing extra protection so people can go to church … not so much IMO.
frednk says:
Friday, May 24, 2019 at 2:25 pm
…“STOP F**KING YOURSELF”…
A bit to passive/aggressive, I think.
“The problem is that Labor people are so totally hung up on the idea that ”corporations” are themselves something other than collections of shareholders. It is the shareholders who in essence bear the tax on the company’s profits.”
Oh good, someone arguing that the “collection of shareholders” should have full liability, beyond what they have actually invested in a company, for all that compainies debts and liabilities. Way to go!! 🙂
That’s right guys, all the electorate needs to start voting Labor again is a stern talking to.
Not sure
You forgot families whose kids go to private schools. Anyone with private health insurance, including those forced to get it by Labor’s penalty system if you don’t have it.
lizzie @ #377 Friday, May 24th, 2019 – 12:12 pm
Possibly. I know for a fact though the shade of blue used in ANZ bank’s logo is a part of their trademark and so can’t by use by anyone else.
“Many people don’t get penalty rates; many voters don’t work on Sunday; many people are not on the minimum wage.”
True, but many people have children who do.
Labor could have borrowed the NZ tourism slogan from Flight of the Conchords.
Labor. Why not?
Milka Milk Chocolate Alpine vs Cadbury
Rococo Liberal says:
Friday, May 24, 2019 at 1:57 pm
”Only two of the three represent the avoidance of double taxation; in the third case government has foregone revenue for no good reason.”
That comment must be the silliest of the day.
Only a total moron doesn’t understand that company tax is a downpayment of the tax that the government gets on the profits generated by companies. In most cases that downpayment will be less than the total tax payable on the prifts at marginal individual rates. In other cases it will be less. If it is less, the profits of the company in the hands of the relevant individual should be less than the company rate.
That puts the question to bed. The Labor policy was bad because it completely defied the scheme and logic of the tax legislation. The problem is that Labor people are so totally hung up on the idea that ”corporations” are themselves something other than collections of shareholders. It is the shareholders who in essence bear the tax on the company’s profits.
________________________________________________
Steaming load of diseased turds.
If a company was nothing more than the collection of shareholders, the shareholders would be liable personally for the debts of the company if it fails.
Labor needs to counter the liars who spread bullshit like this (and the death tax rubbish). It doesn’t matter who Labor has as a leader unless that person can fight back dirtier and more aggressively than the slimy crap now back in government.
PB
I have no trouble with abolishing franking credits altogether, presumably this would be tied to a drop in the corporate tax rate that we are told is comparatively high and uncompetitive.
Abolishing the corporate tax rate and taxing dividends is an interesting concept but I think it would fall over as companies find ways of rewarding shareholders other than by dividend.
As we can see from the debate here, the Labor policy was complex and poorly understood; fertile ground for a fear campaign
“Franking credits is going to be an easy scare campaign at the next election unless Labor stick by the policy AND explain the policy properly to the country. They need to convince people of the need for the change and that the money will be spend in areas that will benefit the country and everyone in it.”
I’d suggest more potent is the reminder of the total annual figure – that it’s greater than federal expenditure on schools this year, will soon be greater than federal expenditure on the pension, and essentially necessitates borrowing of over $100 million per week.
“the same trap as trying to promote wage subsidies just for childcare” – childcare was going to be the first of several industries’ workers to get this attention. This in conjunction with a focused eye on the practices of these private operators would make childcare more affordable and accessible. Childcare costs are a constant gripe for a huge section of the community.