From my paywalled article in Crikey yesterday:
In the wake of its most unambiguous failure at a federal election since at least 1980, Australia’s polling industry is licking its wounds.
The Nine/Fairfax papers have announced the Ipsos poll series will be put on ice, and those pollsters who do return to the field shortly will face catcalls whether they persist in recording a Labor lead we now know doesn’t exist, or only now start detecting a Coalition lead that eluded them through the entirety of the past parliamentary term.
Despite it all though, the pollsters’ performance hasn’t been without its defenders.
Spoiler alert: the latter refers to David Briggs and Nate Silver. But Peter Brent can now be added to the list, up to a point, following a review of the issues raised by the polling failure in Inside Story. Specifically, Brent observes that the primary vote miss was less severe than the two-party preferred; that the difference arose from a stronger-than-anticipated flow of minor party and independent preferences to the Coalition; that herding was less apparent on the primary vote (most markedly in the case of Ipsos’s reading of the balance of support between Labor and the Greens); and that the result was, if nothing else, no worse than the Victorian state election.
Another point noted is the strange consistency with which polls have pointed to extravagant gains for Labor in Queensland before and during election campaigns, only for them to fall away at the end. On this occasion, the falling away as recorded by pollsters wasn’t remotely on the scale needed to predict the result, with statewide polling published towards the end of the campaign landing at least 7% shy of what looks like being the Coalition two-party vote in the state.
The question of geographic variability in the pollster failure seemed worth exploring, so I have put together a table of state and electorate level polling published in the last fortnight or so of the campaign, available below the fold at the bottom of the post. Almost all of this polling was conducted by YouGov Galaxy, whether under its own name or as Newspoll. The only exception was a set of state-level two-party preferred totals from Ipsos, published at the tail end of the campaign by the Age-Herald (which performed rather poorly).
Below all this is a list of “average bias” figures, consisting of straight averages of the observed errors, be they positive or negative, rather than the absolute errors. This means combinations of positive and negative results will have the fact of cancelling out — although there were actually very few of those, as the errors tended to be consistently in the one direction. The national and state-level two-party results are estimates provided to me by Nine’s election systems consultant David Quin. With no Coalition-versus-Labor figures available from 15 electorates, this inevitably involves a fair bit of guess work.
A few points should be observed. Given that poll trends pointed to a clear long-term trend to the Coalition, pollsters may be excused a certain amount of Labor bias when evaluating polling that was in many cases conducted over a week before the election. This is particularly true of the Newspoll state aggregates, which cover the full length of the campaign.
Another issue with the Newspoll state aggregates is that One Nation was a response option for all respondents in the early part of the campaign, despite their contesting only 59 out of 151 seats. Their vote here accordingly comes in too high, and as Peter Brent notes, at least part of their failure could be explained by stranded One Nation supporters breaking in unexpectedly large quantities to the Coalition, rather than other minor party targets of opportunity like Clive Palmer.
In seat polling though, where the issue did not arise, the polls were remarkable in having understated support for One Nation, and overstated it for the United Australia Party. This was one face of a two-sided polling failure in Queensland, of which the other was a serious imbalance towards Labor in support recorded for the major parties. While Queensland has caught most of the attention on this score, the polls were just as far out in measuring the primary votes of the major parties in Western Australia. Things were less bad in Victoria, but Coalition support was still significantly underestimated.
The only bright spots in the picture are New South Wales and South Australia, where Newspoll just about nailed the Coalition, Labor and Greens primary votes, and got the big things right in four seat polls. While Labor’s strength was overstated in Macquarie, it does now appear Labor will pull through there – for more on that front, stay tuned to the late counting thread.
Pushing inheritance taxes shows that progressives are learning nothing, Australian don’t want new taxes, they know government coffers are full and that governments are wasteful with its spending.
Brexit, Florida and Georgia gubernatorials, Queensland, WA – what do these have in common? Is there not a ‘shy tory’ but a ‘shy redneck/ working class rightist’ effect in play in terms of poll results.
I must have missed something. Which progressives are pushing inheritance taxes?
Lizzie
In various political forum you see some progressives pushing it such as Nick on the previous page.
So by denying he wants the leadership means Shorten is after the leadership? Bit Monty Python’ish.
mexican
Ah, well, I ignore Nick. I thought it must be yer ackshull political Party. 🙂
Re the 30k franking credit money
Some articles posted had said thousands had registered on a web site ,o claim there refund and one place had received hundreds of call from pensioners asking how to register.
One old guy said he only voted lnp because he was going to get $30k in franking money.
You’d laugh so hard if it wasn’t so serious.
Just shows what your up against,with such stupidity.
Mexicanbeemer @ #203 Friday, May 31st, 2019 – 1:14 pm
So, don’t generalise.
Even up to the time Bill challenges for the leadership posters on here will be claiming it is all a media conspiracy.
Lizzie & C@tmomma
I choose the word progressives rather than referenced a political party because I wasn’t talking about politicians, and I didn’t generalised as I did say some or meant too.
One difference with Shorten no longer being leader is that he stood down, as opposed to most cases we’ve seen of late where the change has been brought about by a direct challenge.
This has been the case for the last two Labor leaders. When did this last happen with the Liberals?
Mexican, nobody here is advocating an inheritance tax.
There is ample fiscal space already.
Mexican
I understand. I was aware that the “death tax” was an invention of the LNP and thought there must be a rumour that Labor was thinking about promoting it.
Nicholas
Thanks, I thought you were and I agree there is ample fiscal space.
Wouldn’t it just be better for the Labor Party if Shorten retires in a month or two? Do they really need a shadow minister whose presence means leadershit, which will inevitably be regurgitated?
Malcolm Fraser I presume?
lizzie
Apparently Albo mentioned it……………………….some time last century when he had lots of hair and was in Young Labor. Thank goodness those orcs over at Mordor Media alerted us to this frightening piece of information 🙁
Yes, Albanese supported death duties.
In 1985. As reported by the Australian.
Stupidity has become a very common widely spread malaise or not perhaps?
The LNP are more in step with stupidity, Murdoch press certainly, and their ‘journalists’ are bus drivers on the same route.
Diogenes says:
Friday, May 31, 2019 at 1:27 pm
If no one in Labor’s Parliamentary ranks is backgrounging about leadership discontent then why would there be stories?
Why should Labor discard a proven Minister capable of achieving significant results if they wish to remain?
poroti and ltep
That’s the end for Albo’s bid for PM, then. (sarc)
Game 1 NBA final
Toronto Raptors 118 Golden State Warriors 109
Played in Toronto, first NBA final game played outside the United States.
Toronto leads best of seven series 1-0.
Goll
Stupidity ? More PC to refer to them as “low information voters” and the Murdoch crew sure do like to make sure they stay that way.
Diogenes
Shorten stepping down would be used as evidence that Shorten intended to challenge again.
News ltd need to be called for every infringement of the truth.
Let them write lurid articles about leadership challenges all they want.
It is abundantly clear that it doesn’t matter a whit. None of that stuff that goes on makes any impression in the electorate at all. I bet in a random sample of 100 voters you’d struggle to find more than one or two that had heard the story about Albo’s supposed designs on the leadership in the last term.
The only local political stories that even entered the public consciousness in a lasting manner up until the last 6 months before the election (being generous) were Barnaby’s personal travails, and the actual dumping of the Prime Minister. That’s it.
So when it comes to the reporting of politics, I advise you all to embrace the subtle art of not giving a fuck. For most of the time – everything except in the time immediately preceding an election campaign – it doesn’t seem to matter at all.
meher baba says:
Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 8:48 pm
You can dump on Latika all you want, but I thought she made a couple of reasonable points.
Of course, there’s some garbage in the article too: how on earth can there be a problem with Albo saying that Husic is “one of his best mates”?
—————————————-
The Devil’s Advocate, Meher Baba, D.A., (LLb., B.A. Hons., Hades U) has done it again!
“Reasonable points”?
His ANALysis of the Bourke drivel suggests he’s been taking trolling lessons from Nath, Salk, Rex, Lars von Liar, et al.
If you forgive my presumption, there are things that PB’ers should never do, apart from piling on and beating a dead horse (leadershit):
Always defend the indefensible. Never look below the surface. Swallow any garbage like Bourke’s without considering the merits of the story, the motive of the writer or the source. Accept false equivalence. Take your fellow PB’ers the same way the Coalition and its media enablers take the voters, as a bunch of fools.
He’ll be telling us soon that the media played no role in the recent election. There’s enough material there for a journalism school Ph.D thesis for Cripes sake!. And from the looks of it in the SMH this week, they’ve already started on the 2022 election.
I’m cool with an inheritance tax…and a real big-arsed mofo of an inheritance tax at that- payable in advance instalments by rich bastards.
Max
It would be politically easier to introduce a new tax bracket for people earning X amount, say $500k per year.
max
says:
Friday, May 31, 2019 at 1:51 pm
I’m cool with an inheritance tax…and a real big-arsed mofo of an inheritance tax at that- payable in advance instalments by rich bastards.
_____________________________
I think a modest inheritance tax on estates over 2 million or so would be fair.
anything to reduce stamp duty to negligible proportions.
I have a friend who drives over 3 hours per day for work. Ideally he would like to sell up where he is and move closer to work. stamp duty is an inhibitor for all sorts of mobility options.
Paddy Manning is not a happy camper:
And I will answer his question in the affirmative.
https://www.themonthly.com.au/today/paddy-manning/2019/28/2019/1559022619/quiet-australia
nath
$2m might sound a lot but it really isn’t, anything less than $5m runs the risk of hitting working class people but the other problem with inheritance tax is the ease of getting around it.
Mexicanbeemer
says:
Friday, May 31, 2019 at 2:07 pm
nath
$2m might sound a lot but it really isn’t, anything less than $5m runs the risk of hitting working class people but the other problem with inheritance tax is the ease of getting around it.
_________________________________
5% on 2 mill, tapering upwards I reckon to a ceiling of 12%.
True mexicanbeemer – I’m fantasising. It’s a bit more comforting than contemplating the unpleasant political reality at the moment…. but I do think that in principle an inheritance tax is a great idea.
$2 mill is a generous threshold… not really in big arsed mofo territory… but would still be political poison right now
And I still think no one, particularly not the media, has made a case for how a leadership challenge could possibly play out.
So, point (a) there’s the new rules which make it hard to mount a challenge in the first place, but any challenger is then going to have to go through a campaign to win the votes to get to be leader. In all likelihood a challenger is going to seriously damage their standing unless there are damn good reasons to challenge. A challenger who pisses off the membership could potentially get over the line by winning over almost all of caucus, but … that’s not going to happen unless something extreme happens, and presumably everyone involved would know it would be a disastrous outcome.
What would reasons for challenging be, anyway? Well that brings us to point (b) which is the polls, of course. Polling has been the driving factor in enabling all of the leadership changes of the last decade – Rudd->Gillard when internal polling was used to make the case for change within the ALP, Gillard->Rudd when continuous terrible polling for the ALP meant Gillard had to go, Abbott->Turnbull – 50 newspolls of course, Turnbull->Morrison was only possible because of lots more losing polls.
That won’t work now – polls, hah! And besides, if there are polls showing Albo’s ALP behind, how could that tie into the logic of a change to (apparently ultra-unpopular) Shorten?
The only thing that could make sense to get a challenge up is if Albo goes completely loco and pisses off a whole bunch of people in the party. Even I don’t think that’s at all likely, and I’m no fan of Albo.
So, yeah, without explaining how a challenge might be possible, leadershit is just complete nonsense. All the ALP have to do, which is what Morrison was doing of late as well, is just say “we learnt the lessons of the past, the rules have been changed, leadershit isn’t a thing”, and they can say that whether or not it’s true and the media can go jump.
Thank you, Jackol. Very cogent analysis. Only problem with it is, people read what’s in the media or watch the 6pm News and believe that instead. No matter the reality otherwise.
That is what we have to try and find a way to do something about. Your suggestion of Labor calling it out is good enough, until Kochie or Latika or any number of other paid bloviators goes. ‘Oh! Shiny new thing that I have discovered. Let me tell you all about it.’ and everyone goes, ‘Uh huh. I thought so.’ Bang! reality goes flying out the window.
“Why should Labor discard a proven Minister capable of achieving significant results if they wish to remain?”
Because having him there reduces the chance of the Labor MPs staying as shadow ministers after the next election. It might not be fair but that’s the reality.
max @ #235 Friday, May 31st, 2019 – 2:11 pm
Apply a 100% death duty on those transferring assets greater than $1M to a living person but give a rebate for personal income tax paid during, say, their last 30 years.
Jackol @ #236 Friday, May 31st, 2019 – 2:14 pm
Since when has political commentating in the MSM required a feasible mechanism for giving credibility to the wild speculation? Reality?! Pfffhhhh.
Oops
Should read “Because having him there increases the chance of the Labor MPs staying as shadow ministers after the next election. “
It’s Time
Okay in theory but would benefit higher income earners.
From what I recall, one of the reasons for the popularity of trusts (family or otherwise) was to minimise death duties.
Mexicanbeemer @ #232 Friday, May 31st, 2019 – 2:07 pm
The real problem is that even at 5% you might as well be taking away the entire inheritance. Say the main thing you inherit is a house that’s valued at $5m. It’s not a liquid asset, but the government wants its $250k all the same. Unless you have a decently large pile of cash just sitting around, you’re going to have to sell the house just to pay the tax. Thanks a lot, asshole government.
And why is this even a thing? Labor couldn’t sell fixing franking credits and negative gearing. They have no chance at selling an inheritance tax and would be stupid to try. Both because of the political implications (“we lost 2019, so let’s just throw away 2022 also!”) and because an inheritance tax is an objectively worse idea than fixing franking credits and negative gearing.
Diogenes says:
Friday, May 31, 2019 at 2:39 pm
😆
If he stays true to his tweet, I don’t see why that would be the case?
No matter the ALP policy it will be political poison. That is your starting point.
It will be interesting to see how the voters are going to react to Morrison government deciding to bail out the banks at a cost of hundreds billions of dollar, in order to prevent them from collapsing. Also imposing mind numbing austerity at the same time to pay for it.
While at the same time there is an economic depression and the unemployment rate rises to anywhere between 15-20%. The Coalition will be discredited in the eyes of the voters for about a generation, if that happens (which I believe is very likely in the next 2 years).
I hereby issue a decree of ‘Damnatio memoriae’.
Shorten must be removed from the ALP. He must be excised from all official documentation, websites and published accounts. Any memorials to him, should any be found, must be toppled and used for scrap. He must be deleted from all histories. The name ‘Shorten’ must be proscribed from all state registries of birth, deaths and marriages. His image must be struck from all online repositories and video archives.
PeeBee says:
Friday, May 31, 2019 at 2:44 pm
Introducing death duties would be complicated.
If it was to be effective, you would need to first eliminate the various means currently available, which allow someone to avoid them.