The first pollster to put its head above the parapet post-election has been Essential Research, though it’s sensibly refraining from treating us to voting intention results for the time being. As reported in The Guardian yesterday, the pollster’s fortnightly survey focused on what respondents did do rather than what they would do, finding 48% saying their decision was made well in advance of the election, 26% saying they made up their mind in the weeks before the election, and 11% saying they made up their mind on polling day. Lest this seemingly high rate of indecision be cited as an alibi for pollster failure, the historical results of the Australian National University’s Australian Election Study – which you can find displayed on page 18 here – suggest these numbers to be in no way out of the ordinary.
The poll also found those who decided in the final weeks came down 40% for the Coalition and 31% for Labor. However, assuming the sample for this poll was as per the Essential norm of between 1000 and 1100 (which I hope to be able to verify later today), the margin of error on this subset of the total sample would have been over 5%, making these numbers statistically indistinguishable from the almost-final national primary vote totals of 41.4% for the Coalition and 33.3% for Labor. This goes double for the finding that those who decided on election day went Coalition 38% and Labor 27%, remembering this counted for only 11% of the sample.
Perhaps notable is a finding that only 22% of respondents said they had played “close attention” to the election campaign, which compares with results of between 30% and 40% for the Australian Election Study’s almost equivalent response for “a good deal of interest in the election” between 1996 and 2016. Forty-four per cent said they had paid little or no attention, and 34% some attention. These findings may be relevant to the notion that the pollsters failed because they had too many politically engaged respondents in their sample. The Guardian reports breakdowns were provided on this question for voters at different levels of education – perhaps the fact that this question was asked signifies that they will seek to redress the problem by weighting for this in future.
Also featured are unsurprising findings on issue salience, with those more concerned with economic management tending to favour the Coalition, and those prioritising education and climate change favouring Labor and the Greens.
In other post-election analysis news, the Grattan Institute offers further data illustrating some now familiar themes: the high-income areas swung against the Coalition, whereas low-to-middle income ones went solidly the other way; areas with low tertiary education swung to the Coalition, although less so in Victoria than New South Wales and Queensland.
Another popular notion is that Labor owes its defeat to a loss of support among religious voters, as a hangover from the same-sex marriage referendum and, in what may have been a sleeper issue at the cultural level, the Israel Folau controversy. Chris Bowen said in the wake of the defeat that he had encountered a view that “people of faith no longer feel that progressive politics cares about them”, and The Australian reported on Saturday that Labor MPs believed Bill Shorten blundered in castigating Scott Morrison for declining to affirm that he did not believe gay people would go to hell.
In reviewing Labor’s apparent under-performance among ethnic communities in Sydney and Melbourne, Andrew Jakubowicz and Christina Ho in The Conversation downplay the impact of religious factors, pointing to a precipitous decline in support for Christian minor parties, and propose that Labor’s promised expansion of parental reunion visas backfired on them. Intended to capture the Chinese vote in Chisholm, Banks and Reid, the actual effect was to encourage notions of an imminent influx of Muslim immigrants, “scaring both non-Muslim ethnic and non-ethnic voters”.
However, I’m not clear what this is based on, beyond the fact that the Liberals did a lot better in Banks than they did in neighbouring Barton, home to “very much higher numbers of South Asian and Muslim residents”. Two things may be said in response to this. One is that the nation’s most Islamic electorate, Watson and Blaxland, recorded swings of 4% to 5% to the Liberals, no different from Banks. The other is that the boundary between Banks and Barton runs right through the Chinese enclave of Hurstville, but voters on either side of the line behaved very differently. The Hurstville pre-poll voting centre, which serviced both electorates, recorded a 4.8% swing to Labor for Barton, and a 5.7% swing to Liberal for Banks. This may suggest that sitting member factors played an important role, and are perhaps of particular significance for Chinese voters.
The reply to both Frednk and C@t is that the Greens ARE A SEPARATE PARTY.
They’re not some ‘sabotage machine’, they’re not trying to ‘make Labor lose’.
They’re exactly like other parties and are trying to win whatever they can.
It’s really not that hard to understand.
Astrobleme
Absolutely yet the Greens openly talk about how the ALP should embrace them in some kind of coalition then on other occasions they talk about replacing the ALP. The Greens are in competition for support, nothing wrong with that but the Greens cannot pretend otherwise.
“If the environment is their measure then it would be hard not to argue the party has been a failure and it should be disbanded.”
And such an argument would be infinitely less dumb than the argument that they deliberately set out to thwart labor and help the coalition. And also far more sensible than the argument that the greens, and not labor, are responsible for labor’s defeat.
Anyone of youse legal eagles know in which court Martin Kane is currently a Registrar?
In 2017 it was “Nowra Local Court”, which doesn’t seem like it would be a hotbed of threats to national security (though it is close to HMAS Albatross a naval air station and various other defence establishments). Of course any judicial officer meeting the requirements of the legislation is able to sign the AFP warrant, but one would have though that people would be extra careful.
Greens are like “labor this, labor that”.
Go fuck yourself.
Seriously.
You didn’t help Labor when they were bombared with Media shit, that they cave in, they are piss weak political party in hope to replace the Labor Party.
“Absolutely yet the Greens openly talk about how the ALP should embrace them in some kind of coalition then on other occasions they talk about replacing the ALP. The Greens are in competition for support, nothing wrong with that but the Greens cannot pretend otherwise.”
No one is pretending the Greens aren’t trying to win!
Also, consider that there is a difference between ‘The Greens’ as a political party that don’t want to be in a Coalition, and the views of posters here who see that there could be a synergy between Labor and The Greens (which there can be, and has been in the past)
What is happening here, is that people are saying the Greens are ‘sabotage machines’ or trying to ‘make Labor lose’ (the implication being they are happy if someone other than Labor wins). It’s stupid.
“Go fuck yourself.”
Yeah… that’ll teach us for having a separate Party.
I mean who wants Democracy anyway?
Rex Douglas
says:
Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 5:52 pm
I note that the leaks from shadow cabinet have started already…
____________________________
Shorten begins his work to bring down another ALP leader. It’s all he is good at. Notice that photo of the Shadow Cabinet. Everyone was huddled over the table, apart from Shorten who sat back, away from the table, like a leader in exile. If looks could kill.
Astrobleme
And they try by sabotaging Labor. They succeeded. Small gain for the Greens, large Gain for the Liberals in seats that turned out to matter. Congratulations.
I don’t understand why your unwilling to claim your prize.
Be nice if you spared us the continual jabs at Labor for a couple of weeks. I expect an anti Labor campaign at the next election; it is what the Greens do.
But I think the path forward for Labor is pretty clear; no Labor will not promise the moon and stuff that will not gain majority support, but if you want actual action for the environment; vote Labor.
C@tmomma says:
Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 6:00 pm
Astrobleme,
In NSW The Greens are ineffectual and, as I was told by The Greens candidate in Robertson, only stand a Lower House candidate at all to help with their Senate vote.
I do think, that The Greens ARE an effective sabotage machine when it comes to the Labor Party, mostly because of the saner analysis proffered, that their desire to attach themselves to Labor like a tick BEFORE Labor have won an election, only serves to drive small ‘l’ Liberals away from voting for the ALP.
__________________________________________
Translation: C@t’s Menzies House handlers believe encouraging conflict between Labor and the Greens is desirable, in other words divide and conquer so the LNP rules – hence c@t’s firm opposition to the Greens.
Magnificent perfidy!
Astrobleme
Before every election someone from the Greens says that they want to do a deal with the ALP but they wont do any deals with the LNP, that I would say is has good as saying we want to enter into a coalition with the ALP.
Grow up, Zoidlord.
Frednk
“And they try by sabotaging Labor. They succeeded. Small gain for the Greens, large Gain for the Liberals in seats that turned out to matter. Congratulations.”
Prove it.
There is no way you could know this. It’s just a narrative you have invented to satisfy your need for an explanation why Labor didn’t win.
I posted two articles earlier that described how the Liberals ran a more successful social media campaign, did you bother to read them?
Astrobleme @ #451 Wednesday, June 5th, 2019 – 6:06 pm
Yet it’s The Greens who keep talking BEFORE an election about forming ANOTHER coalition with Labor.
It’s not that hard to understand why Labor run a mile in the other direction.
And thanks for proving that you are just another typical delusional Greens partisan, Astrobleme. I put a serious point to you about small ‘l’ Liberal voters and you just ignored it in favour of some more decrepit snark.
A former military lawyer at the centre of police raids on the ABC, ran as a Liberal Party candidate at the 2003 NSW election while Scott Morrison was State Director.
David William McBride was arrested by AFP officers at Sydney Airport in September last year, charged with the theft of classified documents and three counts of breaching the Defence Act. Authorities allege he is the source of the leak of classified Defence documents that were the substance of an ABC report known as the “Afghan Files” in 2017.
nath says:
Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 6:15 pm
Rex Douglas
says:
Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 5:52 pm
I note that the leaks from shadow cabinet have started already…
____________________________
Shorten begins his work to bring down another ALP leader. It’s all he is good at. Notice that photo of the Shadow Cabinet. Everyone was huddled over the table, apart from Shorten who sat back, away from the table, like a leader in exile. If looks could kill.
____________________________
Poor Albo, hamstrung at the beginning with Littlefinger hanging around. Good to see him bringing in smart loyalists like Gartrell.
“Before every election someone from the Greens says that they want to do a deal with the ALP but they wont do any deals with the LNP, that I would say is as good as saying we want to enter into a coalition with the ALP.”
That sounds like re-interpretation on your part.
That doesn’t sound like a ‘Coalition’. I think that would need a proper agreement.
Are Center Alliance in the Coalition?
Bevan Shields of Fairfax/Nine fame, getting shit on twitter for this tweet. can’t imagine why.
Bevan Shields
@BevanShields
Mexicanbeemer @ #461 Wednesday, June 5th, 2019 – 6:18 pm
The Greens called it an Alliance. Same same. And as soon as they start making their demands of Labor BEFORE an election, voters think about this:
“Yet it’s The Greens who keep talking BEFORE an election about forming ANOTHER coalition with Labor.”
No they don’t, unless you are redefining the word Coalition.
They can do deals with Labor when they have the balance of power. They have done deals with the Coalition.
It’s about who has the power in the Parliament
so C@tmomma (-1-2%) you admit conversations with the Greens candidate, did you have conversations with David Abrahams as well ?
Oops link
https://amp.9news.com.au/article/296593c7-6d5b-4fe9-8d67-d16815bc401b?__twitter_impression=true
Astrobleme
No Centre Alliance isn’t in coalition and its never talked up doing deals with one major political party over the other major party. People like Adam Bandt make it well known that they want a deal with the ALP then the Greens complain loudly if the ALP refuse to deal with them or worst if they dare not to direct preferences.
Maybe greens should William.
Astrobleme @ #470 Wednesday, June 5th, 2019 – 6:28 pm
Oh, sorry, ‘Alliance’.
Maybe greens should work and backup the labor party instead of helping the media by putting them into a corner.
Democratic country my ass.
On the ABC raids.
Why is the AFP a conducting raid when the matter is already before the court?
Good Drum tonight, talking about how the Greens have rooted the country and Labor.
Oh, sorry, no they were actually talking about the screwed economy.
“The Greens called it an Alliance”
What Bob Brown said was an ‘Alliance on key issues’, which is much more nuanced.
Bob Brown has endorsed a future Shorten-Di Natale alliance to combat climate change after the May 18 election, declaring the Greens will be able to convince Labor to take more decisive action.
Also
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/greens-stir-gillard-ghosts-in-call-for-coalition/news-story/a9321a60f514aaa94cb018460c355865
https://theconversation.com/shorten-distances-himself-from-green-overtures-on-climate-policy-116360
Both of these show you are not correct
“Maybe greens should work and backup the labor party”
I know the answer!!!!
It’s because they’re a DIFFERENT PARTY
It is only before the court in a preliminary stage where it will remain for a long while so the gathering of further evidence is permissible.
Astrobleme
You can call it a coalition or an alliance but ultimately the Greens are only interested in doing deals with the ALP or replacing the ALP. Adam Bandt has made it clear he will never work with a LNP government.
frednk @ #414 Wednesday, June 5th, 2019 – 5:26 pm
Labor should ignore them. Full stop.
They have bigger fish to fry. Or should.
From a party whose voters preference Labor at something north of 80%. That’s a lot of support for Labor to lose on a TPP basis by constantly antagonizing those voters. And very little available for them to gain.
I gather The AFP are wanting to know who all the sources (ie whistleblowers) are, so they can hold them to account.
Not a good situation when the Afghan killings are in the public interest.
Oh dear.
http://theconversation.com/government-didnt-walk-away-from-the-greens-but-milne-needed-to-ditch-labor-12308
Someone else says you are not correct, Astrobleme. Who to believe? You, or a Political Science lecturer, Zareh Ghazarian, at Monash University? Hmm.
Victoria @ #484 Wednesday, June 5th, 2019 – 6:38 pm
Exactly. What’s worse, the whistleblowing, or the crimes exposed in the Afghan Files!?!
Go Zoid.
C@t
Exactamondo.
“No Centre Alliance isn’t in coalition and its never talked up doing deals with one major political party over the other major party. ”
Hmmmm…
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/2019/05/18/exclusive-labor-tax-plan-faces-block-centre-alliance/15581016008154
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-29/coalition-big-stick-break-up-coles-woolworths-centre-alliance/11160784
@Astrobleme
ALLIANCE
C@tmomma says:
Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 6:39 pm
Victoria @ #484 Wednesday, June 5th, 2019 – 6:38 pm
I gather The AFP are wanting to know who all the sources (ie whistleblowers) are, so they can hold them to account.
Not a good situation when the Afghan killings are in the public interest.
Exactly. What’s worse, the whistleblowing, or the crimes exposed in the Afghan Files!?! – or working for Menzies House as an entryist operative?
Lets assume there was a complete breakdown between the Greens and the ALP, where would the Greens preferences go? I would think not much would change but it could depend on the electorate.
“The Greens are only interested in doing deals with the ALP or replacing the ALP. ”
remember when The Greens dealt with the Coalition and everyone here chucked a massive spaz about it…
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/greens-clinch-a-deal-with-coalition-on-senate-voting-reform/news-story/6a7f728b2fc00d3a1e1968fed20edee6
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/14/labor-rebukes-coalition-for-siding-with-greens-on-opt-out-superannuation-life-insurance
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/03/greens-accused-of-selling-out-over-deal-with-coalition-on-tax-transparency
Oh wait, I forgot. The Greens have never achieved ANYTHING
The Greens are a different Party?
Of course it is.
What I would like to see is the Greens Party holding itself to account.
“Someone else says you are not correct, Astrobleme. Who to believe? You, or a Political Science lecturer, Zareh Ghazarian, at Monash University? Hmm.”
So an agreement in 2010 trumps RDN saying in 2019 he didn’t want an Alliance or Coalition? Weird.
Astrobleme
Agreeing or disagreeing with a policy doesn’t equal seeking to form a coalition.
Shorten backed every intrusive security related nonsense brought to parliament by Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison. He is the co-author of an ever increasing diminishing of civil liberties.
Let’s face it.
The one true path to excellence in all domains is via a Greens government.
So if everyone will only just be patient, all will be well.
“What I would like to see is the Greens Party holding itself to account.”
It would be amazing to see, I mean how would they do it? What would their process be…
I, for one, am really intrigued as to how they would ‘Hold Themselves to account’…
And just imagine what the findings would be!
Hmm, Jim Chalmers finds 30% tax rates offensive for people earning $200K or more per annum.
What would he say to the Gladstone guy who asked Littefinger for tax relief? Take his name so he could be attended to later?