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.
lizzie @ #1237 Friday, June 7th, 2019 – 9:23 am
How Orwellian of the Minister. 😐
Jackol says:
Friday, June 7, 2019 at 9:18 am
There is nothing clear about this at all.
Certainly the timing of the raids can give that perception, but that certainly doesn’t mean it was “clearly” the case.
Cathy Wilcox’s cartoon, for me, hit the nail on the head this morning, highlighting the lack of transparency in the Government.
“You’re dreaming. It’ll be austerity for all and a rise in the GST. ”
Nah. They’ll quite happily go into deficit to keep business afloat. Ultimately, that’s who backs them, that’s who they’ll support.
It seems even here people buy into the myth that the right really cares about surpluses.
The big difference will be the spending priorities.
a r @ #1248 Friday, June 7th, 2019 – 9:51 am
And do you think there was a journalist out there who thought to ask during the election campaign whether, if services were not going to be cut as a result of the Revenue/Tax cuts, as Morrison and Frydenburg professed, then what would be done to stop the budget slipping into deficit and to maintain the projected surpluses?
I can think of only one thing.
Raise the rate of the GST.
Bring on the 202o Horror Budget. Serves people right for voting for the mendacious bastards.
Ita Buttrose speaks.
http://about.abc.net.au/statements/statement-by-ita-buttrose-abc-chair-on-the-publics-right-to-know/
Bellwether @ #1245 Friday, June 7th, 2019 – 9:45 am
Ships travel slowly. Plans are made well ahead. The polls only turned around for Morrison late in the piece before the election. Clive Palmer has been very, very quiet about it since the Chinese ships turned up but was very, very noisy about Labor being in bed with the Chinese Military before the election, and people believed it.
So, yes, I’m inclined to agree with your proposition.
Dan Gulberry says:
Friday, June 7, 2019 at 9:50 am
Michael A @ #1238 Friday, June 7th, 2019 – 7:26 am
I fervently hope the government proves its fetish about budget surpluses was just empty rhetoric, and decides to send the budget into deficit.
You’re dreaming. It’ll be austerity for all and a rise in the GST. Nothing will be allowed to stand in the way of their surplus fetish.
LNP – for the few, not the many.
—————————————
Well, I can dream we are in that alternate universe, where the economically literate actually won on May 18! My dread is that you are right. Feed the poor into the furnace it will be then! Can’t let anything slow down the well off achieving their aspirations, can they?
lizzie @ #1244 Friday, June 7th, 2019 – 9:43 am
They prefer government by bells and dog whistles, disinformation, stunts and propaganda. Oh, and intimidation.
Confessions
That was a good statement from Ita.
Barney –
I’m not quite sure what point you’re trying to make here. Obviously everything is “in my opinion”, so it is clear to me, though I didn’t express it that way. Does it need to be stated every time?
Plus, the level of coincidence required to entertain the possibility of some other explanation is just not plausible. Again, “in my opinion”, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to come to the conclusion that it’s very very unlikely to be just coincidence that two unconnected investigations underway for years happened to result in extensive raids on consecutive days 2 weeks after a federal election.
It was an improvement from some of her earlier comments, but still doesn’t go far enough.
Outright condemnation is called for. Diplomatic expressions of “grave concern” and claims of intimidation are fine, but also inadequate.
I’m far from a fan of the AFP, and I think they seriously screwed this whole situation up ?
They have now broadcast to the World that Australian ADF troops go around Shooting inocent people!.
This is what they were trying to COVER UP!.
It’s undoubtedly been pointed out by others here, but if so it’s worth repeating:
The AFP went after an ABC journo for doing report that embarasses the military/government. To achieve this they raided the ABC’s office.
The AFP went after a Newscorp journalist for doing a report that embarrasses the government. To achieve this they raided the journo’s home, rather than Newscorp’s office(s).
When an ABC journalist reports wrongdoing, they go after the organisation. When a Newscorp journalist reports on wrongdoing, they go after the individual.
Stink much?
Douglas and Milko, quoting Kate McClymont:
I.e. it was a cock-up (from the govt point of view)
1934pc @ #1262 Friday, June 7th, 2019 – 8:29 am
Someone should explain the Streisand Effect to the AFP.
Yes it was a good statement from Ita Buttrose.
Ita
Like wow!
lizzie @ #1268 Friday, June 7th, 2019 – 10:42 am
Can we have a poll now? 😉
Premature. They’re only beneficial if the laws are changed to protect whistleblowers, the media, and anyone else who finds themselves in possession of a whistleblower’s “classified” information and decides to share it around.
I give that an approximately 0% chance of happening, at least for the next 3 years.
To be fair to the AFP, and again I have no natural inclination at this point to be fair to them, the AFP weren’t the ones trying to cover anything up. The AFP were just engaging in what seems to be their prioritized job of tracking down non-government-approved leaks to try and stop future non-government-approved leaks.
And I think the government does understand the Streisand effect, but being the government they also understand that while drawing attention to the specific incidents is unfortunate, visibly targeting journalists and leakers now will help stop those whistles being blown on their future dirty deeds and fuckups, so … on balance worth it. Particularly given that it’s 3 years until the next election and the voting public clearly have 5 second attention spans at the best of times.
I think a more likely story with the Chinese fleet is that they said “we’re coming whether you like it or not” to show their power, and Morrison kept it quiet during the campaign because of Clive’s loony ads.
We live in a quasi-tyrannical State. The current suppression of individual and public interest rights within Australia are merely a continuation of policies directed against unions and environmental groups. They are a continuation of the cruel exhibitionism used to exploit asylum seekers, trapped in Australia’s gulag.
The worse the economy gets, the worse the environment gets, the more repression we will see.
How good are the Blues and the Greens.
Ita agib.
Perhaps Dutton and the AFP might consider that.
Statement by Ita Buttrose, ABC Chair, on the public’s right to know:
On behalf of the ABC, I have registered with the Federal Government my grave concern over this week’s raid by the federal police on the national broadcaster.
An untrammelled media is important to the public discourse and to democracy. It is the way in which Australian citizens are kept informed about the world and its impact on their daily lives.
Observance of this basic tenet of the community’s right to know has driven my involvement in public life and my career in journalism for almost five decades.
The raid is unprecedented – both to the ABC and to me.
In a frank conversation with the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts, Paul Fletcher, yesterday, I said the raid, in its very public form and in the sweeping nature of the information sought, was clearly designed to intimidate.
It is impossible to ignore the seismic nature of this week’s events: raids on two separate media outfits on consecutive days is a blunt signal of adverse consequences for news organisations who make life uncomfortable for policy makers and regulators by shining lights in dark corners and holding the powerful to account.
I also asked for assurances that the ABC not be subject to future raids of this sort. Mr Fletcher declined to provide such assurances, while noting the “substantial concern” registered by the Corporation.
https://about.abc.net.au/statements/statement-by-ita-buttrose-abc-chair-on-the-publics-right-to-know/
The AFP put up their talking heads on the media from time to time and I have to say the most memorable thing about them is that they’re not the sharpest pencils in the case. Maybe they just bungled this (with Dutton sniggering in the background of course).
I like Ita’s choice of words in her statement. She seems to know how far to go and to not go over the top, without seeming meek and complacent.
The problem with the AFP media raid isn’t that they went after journalists who got a confidential leak, it’s that journalists publish them all the time coz the government gave them the papers and the AFP declines to investigate them.
“Dan Gulberry says:
Friday, June 7, 2019 at 10:31 am
It’s undoubtedly been pointed out by others here, but if so it’s worth repeating:
The AFP went after an ABC journo for doing report that embarasses the military/government”
I know that it is just the juxtaposition of words, but “military/government” is quite scary.
Ita’s statement was much better than Milne’s would have been. He would have said “The AFP can drop in any time they like. Mea casa, sua casa!”
Yeah, on the Afghan files it’s interesting to contemplate the motivations. Sure, there’s something in generically protecting the ‘secret’ classification.
But beyond that this would seem to be coming from Defence, with the government’s blessing – if the Commonwealth AG wasn’t supportive of pursuing this I don’t think it would have gone anywhere.
So why would the government particularly care about a damaging report for Defence on behaviour that occurred on the previous government’s watch?
Perhaps it is as Andrew Hastie once said, that the armed forces never felt like Labor ‘had their back’. This is the government ‘having their back’ and earning that locked in support, perhaps.
People here may correct me if I have this wrong and I will recant /apologise if I have it wrong………… but isn’t the ALP and the indies at least complicit with the govt in these raids due to the fact they helped pass the legislation that enabled it.?
It’s all well and good to go after the govt but you need to go after EVERYONE who voted for them. I’m sure how people voted in the senate is a matter of record.?
Perhaps putting up a list of senators who gave assent to the laws might help people in “targeting” or perhaps messaging those senators and ask them are the raids this week why they voted the way they did.?
Perhaps it is as Andrew Hastie once said, that the armed forces never felt like Labor ‘had their back’. This is the government ‘having their back’ and earning that locked in support, perhaps.
And having Andrew Hastie’s back as a part of the government as well.
“military/government”
Jackol – yes.
I think the Australian Border Force, under our old friend Mr Potato Head, might be part of the bridge between the two.
sonar,
As commented yesterday, Labor voted for these laws in the run-up to the election so they couldn’t be wedged on National Security in the election campaign by Morrison and Dutton. They likely fully intended to amend the worst aspects of the legislation upon coming to government. It’s just that the last bit of their plan didn’t quite work out the way they thought it would.
Both Dutton and Albanese this morning said the laws the AFP were acting under have been in place for decades. If that’s true then it’s likely the people responsible for passing those laws are no longer in parliament.
Confessions @ #1288 Friday, June 7th, 2019 – 12:13 pm
Ah, yes. That’s right, the post World War 1 Espionage Laws.
deleted.
Thanks to those who responded. I got it wrong. I apologise.
If only Prime Minister Di Natale was running this country we wouldn’t need to be listening to Liberal concern trolls and Greens trolls about Labor’s role in Dutton’s theft of democracy.
Only 41% PP to go and all will be fixed.
With Donald Trump and his clown posse in the loop, how could Australia be worried about being the unreliable partner?
C@tmomma @ #1288 Friday, June 7th, 2019 – 12:14 pm
Billy Hughes 1914. Start of WW1
Well if the laws go back to 1914 then *definitely* the MPs responsible for them are no longer in parliament! 😆
The number ’10’ has cropped up in reference to allegations about war crimes being investigated for several years, now.
One of the allegations involves kicking an unarmed prisoner over a cliff and then finishing him with a gun.
The people making the allegations have received several death threats.
One wonders how the AFP are going into their investigation into the death threats.
Why is the Afghan War Crimes investigations taking forever?
Dutton referred specifically to ‘top secret’classification.
I assume that he was implying that the secret was a very important secret in relation to national security.
Perhaps it is time for an independent review of which documents are classified at which level, why they are classified to various levels and who benefits.
lizzie @ #1290 Friday, June 7th, 2019 – 12:17 pm
And if the AFP/ Defence (?) don’t investigate the war crimes that the leaks were about, how does THAT make us look?
The government knows that doing nothing or even imposing austerity during an recession will not help it’s efforts to be re-elected in 2022. Therefore; I can see the government implementing some huge stimulus packages (I don’t know what form they will take). Steve Keen in his post-election podcast said the same thing as well. Also the reserve bank is prepared to cut interest rates to zero and implement Quantitative Easing if a recession occurs.
Also they will do anything to preserve the tax breaks such as Negative Gearing and Franking Dividends. Because running a scare campaign on Franking Dividends helped them win the election.
I wonder what it is about UK Tories that remind one of Blackadder and cunning plans??