Election plus three weeks

A look at how the religious vote might have helped Scott Morrison to victory, plus some analysis of turnout and the rate of informal voting.

I had a paywalled Crikey article on Friday on the religion factor in the election result, drawing on results of the Australian National University’s Australian Election Study survey. Among other things, it had this to say:

The results from the 2016 survey provide some support for the notion, popular on the right of the Liberal Party, that Malcolm Turnbull brought the government to the brink of defeat by losing religious voters, who appear to have flocked back to the party under Morrison. Notably, the fact that non-religious voters trusted Turnbull a lot more than they did Abbott did not translate into extra votes for the Coalition, whereas a two-party swing to Labor of 7% was recorded among the religiously observant.

The charts below expand upon the survey data featured in the article, showing how Labor’s two-party preferred has compared over the years between those who attend religious services several times a year or more (“often”), those who do so less frequently (“sometimes”), and those who don’t do it at all (“never”).

Some other post-election observations:

Rosie Lewis of The Australian reports the looming Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the election will examine the three-week pre-polling period and the extent of Clive Palmer’s campaign spending. There is not, it would seem, any appetite to explore the debilitating phenomenon of fake news proliferating on social media, for which Australia arguably experienced a watershed moment during the campaign through claims Labor had a policy to introduce a “death tax”. This is explored in depth today in a report in The Guardian and an accompanying opinion piece by Lenore Taylor. That said, not all of the mendacity about death taxes was subterranean, as demonstrated by this official Liberal Party advertisement.

• As best as I can tell, all votes for the House of Representatives have been counted now. There was a fall in the official turnout rate (UPDATE: No, actually — it’s since risen to 91.9%, up from 91.0% in 2016), which, together with the fact that not all votes had been counted at the time, gave rise to a regrettable article in the Age-Herald last week. However, as Ben Raue at the Tally Room explores in depth, the turnout rate reflects the greater coverage of the electoral roll owing to the Australian Electoral Commission’s direct enrolment procedures. This appears to have succeeded to some extent in increasing the effective participation rate, namely votes cast as a proportion of the eligible population rather than those actually enrolled, which by Raue’s reckoning tracked up from 80.0% in 2010 to 83.2% – an enviable result by international standards. However, it has also means a larger share of the non-voting population is now on the roll rather than off it, and hence required to bluff their way out of a fine for not voting.

• The rate of informal voting increased from 5.0% to 5.5%, but those seeking to tie this to an outbreak of apathy are probably thinking too hard. Antony Green notes the shift was peculiar to New South Wales, and puts this down to the proximity of a state election there, maximising confusion arising from its system of optional preferential voting. The real outlier in informal voting rates of recent times was the low level recorded in 2007, which among other things causes me to wonder if there might be an inverse relationship between the informal voting rate and the level of enthusiasm for Labor.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

1,359 comments on “Election plus three weeks”

  1. It is crucial for Labor supporters to understand that the Greens are FOR Labor and that the Greens are 100% beneficial to Labor. It is only the false consciousness and running dog lackey characteristics of many venal Labor supporters that explains why they are in the Labor Party and not in the Greens Party.

    It is a self-evident truth that the reason that Labor is practically always in opposition is because its policies are not exactly like the Greens policies, its campaigns are far inferior to those of the Greens, and because all Labor MPs and Senators are vastly inferior as performers when compared to their Greens counterparts.

    So now we know why it is crucially important for the Greens to run against Labor: to help Labor and to prevent the right wing wreckers from wrecking the joint. Even more than they do now.

    The Greens have helped Labor for the last 27 years and it has always worked, it is working now, and it will always work. The fact that Labor is now in more or less permanent opposition does not matter because Labor and Liberal are same old same old.

    The Greens have always been, are now, and always will be Labor’s friends. It is sad for the Greens that some Labor people are too stupid to realize this but that is just another cross to bear when you are 100% right 100% of the time about 100% of policies. Labor supporters should refrain from talking about the Greens because there is no point. Why discuss excellence?

    Given the moral, policy and personnel superiority of the Greens, it is reasonable to ask for whom and for what do the Greens expend their political energy. The answer is obvious.

    The Greens exert superior thought leadership. With sufficient Greens explanations this excellent leadership enables Labor slowly but surely to adopt exactly the same government-winning policies as the Greens have been running with these past 27 years.

    The Greens will also ensure that while Labor is in opposition it will be held accountable for everything the Coalition does. Being powerless is only an excuse when you exercise superior thought leadership and when all your policies are the best possible policies. Just like the Greens.

    So, when the Greens form government in 2022 and put a stop to global warming, Labor will finally be good enough to be in opposition having been instructed in the metier for most of the previous three decades.

  2. Briefly

    “The Greens DO campaign against Labor. This is a successful campaign. It has secured the election of Green Senators. It has also disabled Labor in the quest for government. ”

    So your argument is that The Greens were too successful. Weird argument, when they achieved the same result pretty much they achieved for the last 4 or so elections…
    The reason they got more Senators, or rather the SAME number they had, is because of the changes to the senate voting rules.

    So, the Greens get the same they have had for a long time and this results in Labor’s demise – is that right?

  3. More fool to the shop for failing to realize that charging $40 for smashed Avo + gluten free Felafel balls would yield them far more cash than selling $4 meat pies…

  4. I’ve been trying to avoid wading into the Labor/Greens wars as of late, primarily because getting involved rarely achieves much beyond raising my blood pressure and boring everyone else here to death.

    For what its worth, I do think the Adani convoy and related Greens campaign was a factor in Labor’s loss. Note that I say a factor. It was one small element in the perfect storm that led to this result. The way several people here have been railing hysterically against the Greens with barely a peep about the various mistakes Labor themselves made simply reveals their own biases. I would say there is a legitimate argument to be made about whether or not the Greens are in fact advancing or hindering progressive and environmental progress in Australia, but that doesn’t make the ravings of the likes of Briefly and Beorwar any less hyperbolic.

    I don’t think the Greens hate Labor, nor do I think they focus their efforts on campaigning against Labor. They are regularly and vitriolically critical of the Coalition, significantly moreso than towards the Labor party – anyone who hasn’t noticed this is deliberately missing it. Yes, they are often critical against the Labor party too, and campaign against them in key battlegrounds, much as Labor does against them – as is both sides’ prerogatives as political parties.

    Have the Greens sometimes been guilty of poor judgement and tactical misfires. Yes, I’d agree with that. Have these mistakes had collateral damage which impacted on Labor’s electoral chances. Sadly, yes, I think so, though I’m not sure Labor are in much of a position to judge when it comes to poor political tactics. Are they deliberately trying to keep Labor out of office? I seriously doubt it.

    (Since these discussions always seem to devolve into accusations of people being closet Greens or Liberals or whatever, I’ll just add, for anyone who actually cares, that I was a Greens supporter for many years (not a member, but a very rusted on 1 Green, 2 Labor voter), gradually grew disillusioned with them in the last couple of terms, volunteered for and voted 1 Labor in the last election, and have recently applied to become a Labor member.)

  5. C@t

    “The ‘hard data’ you demand (like all Greens you demand Labor supporters jump when you say jump, or you won’t believe them), can be found in the massive swings to the Coalition in the Regional Queensland seats.”

    No, this is not ‘hard data’ – it’s an assumption you have made, that somehow the Greens have forced people who WOULD have voted for Labor to vote for someone else.
    The Greens vote barely changed. Labor’s changed a lot and somehow this is The Greens’ fault?

    You need to do the analysis.

  6. You’ve got wonder how Shorten would’ve managed the Setka affair. Albanese has acted before his political opponents could get a foot in the door. Good start. Keep it up.

  7. I’ll say it again.
    I think Adani Convoy was a dumb thing to do.

    I don’t think it did anything to Labor.

    Labor basically had no policy on Adani – they barely spoke about it. With people just hoping it would quietly fade away.

  8. Labor has never been weaker. What use are the Greens without Labor?

    The supplementary question is obviously, “What use are Labor without the Greens?”.

    If Labor is truly as weak as you say, surely they need the Greens more than the Greens need Labor. The Greens will stay pretty much as they’ve always been at around 10% of the national vote. It is Labor’s share of the vote that is weakening. A move to the Right will see it weaken even further, and may well see the Greens share increasing.

    I know some on here don’t want to read/hear it, but Labor really needs to make a stand and show the public exactly what it stands for. They roll over on all matters relating to national security to no avail as the Libs will always hammer them for being weak no matter how many times Labor kowtows to them. And then of course there’s the abandoning of its own stated policy on ISDS clauses in the TPP, and the completely mixed message they have on the future of coal.

    As a lifelong Labor voter I struggle sometimes to understand exactly what they stand for other than being a bit to the Left of the Libs.

    Some on here proclaim that Labor should move to where the voters are. How exactly is that “leadership”? It is reminiscent of the quote by Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin, “There go my people. I must find out where they’re going so I can lead them”.

    Now before anyone posts that “in order to make changes Labor needs to be elected first”. If they abandon principles purely to get elected then they’re never going to regain them when they do achieve office. That will cause them to be voted out by the same people that they won over in order to get voted in in the first place.

    Sometime in the next three years Labor is going to have to draw a line in the sand somewhere and state, “This is where we stand”. You never know, actually standing for something might just win voters to their cause (whatever that might be).

  9. One of the Lib themes is that the CFMMEU dictates Labor policy and Shorten found this difficult to deny because of his comparatively recent ACTU history.

    Albo has done the smart thing over Setka (although I have some sympathy for Setka, as I followed him on Twitter for a while and he genuinely cares about workers).

  10. On Queensland:

    It should be noted that the Greens ran hard on Adani during the last state election. I’d argue moreso than they did during the federal election. Pretty much every main Queensland paper is a Murdoch rag that is obsessive in its loathing of Palasczcuk and state Labor. The government itself was in a precarious minority government, and beset by a number of damaging scandals. The LNP leader was, well, an idiot, as is the way of the Queensland LNP, but also ran a reasonably solid, small target campaign with few gaffes (apart from one rather embarrassing one a few days before the election.)

    Labor won the election. They increased their seats, moving from minority to majority government, and continuing an almost unbroken 28 year stint in power. The Greens also did well, picking up their first seat in a Queensland state election, and stealing it off a Lib to boot.

    My point is that every election is a complicated affair, with the result happening both because of and despite myriad different factors. Any statement along the lines of “(Insert party here) lost/won because of X” is invariably a false statement.

  11. lizzie says:
    Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 12:46 pm

    One of the Lib themes is that the CFMMEU dictates Labor policy and Shorten found this difficult to deny because of his comparatively recent ACTU history.

    Albo has done the smart thing over Setka (although I have some sympathy for Setka, as I followed him on Twitter for a while and he genuinely cares about workers).

    I see parallels with Folau;

    Great rugby player, but …

    Setka, great worker’s advocate, but …

  12. Great work by Albo in saying he wants Setka expelled and admitting Labor went too far pandering to the Libs on national security.
    A breath of fresh air.

  13. Good post, Dan. Policy-wise Labor was brave, but it didn’t handle the selling of its policies at all well. The Adani matter also had an impact up here, made all the worse with the Greens’ convoy, in a state where, due to its volatility, elections are won or lost, and where the Tories hold 24 of the 30 seats.

  14. Prime Minister to meet with ABC leadership.

    I’d love to be a fly on the wall for the REAL conversation, rather than the mealy-mouthed report from the PM.

  15. Antony GreenVerified account@AntonyGreenABC
    3h3 hours ago
    Measuring the impact of abolishing group voting tickets in the 2016 Senate changes – with the chance of fluke victory by preference ‘harvesting’ now gone, the number of parties/groups nominating is starting to decline #ausvotes

    :large

  16. briefly and Boerwar and the other bores on PB can rant and rail against the Greens all they wish.

    But Labor did not lose the election because of anything the Greens did. They lost because their political positioning was confusing and, to the extent that it was understood, unpopular with the aspirational voters in the marginals.

    Examples of poor Labor positioning:

    Confused messaging about Labor policy re Adani: were they for it or against it

    Flirting with Clive Palmer’s party (clever clogs again)

    Support for Kerryn Phelps’ medevac bill, contradicting the party’s position that it was in lockstep with the Government re asylum seekers (yet again, clever clogs in the machine thought this would be a good idea because the Government would be defeated on the floor of the house: as if the average voter could give a stuff about that. I also think that the Labor leadership went with this because they were struggling to keep the Left faction in line on the issue.)

    A ridiculous set of tax policies with 2 million or more definite losers and no clarity about who were the winners (other than the budget bottom line) and which dominated press conference after election meeting after press conference: a total distraction from any messaging designed to remind the public of the Government’s many shortcomings, and which also enabled the Liberal “death tax” campaign as payback for Mediscare in 2016.

    A confusing child care policy which mainly came across as being about delivering a pay rise to one group of workers but nobody else.

    A cancer policy which made a promise – no out of pocket expenses – which people who make regular use of the health system would know is well-nigh impossible to achieve.

    Strong Labor support for the elephant killers in NSW (clever clogs in Sussex St thought it was a smart tactic, but I’m sure it drove even more voters towards the Greens at both state and Federal level)

    A poor advertising campaign which didn’t target the Government nearly enough.

    And many more. It was a terrible campaign informed by an unappetizing set of policies. These facts would have been apparent more than a year ago were it not for the ineptitude of the polling companies.

    I reckon that, if the policies and the campaign messaging had been better, Labor could have overcome the unpopularity of Shorten.

    As for the Greens, all they did was to stick to their knitting as they have been doing in Federal and State elections for most of the past three decades. In fact, they even laid on a serious internal party dispute in NSW, which ought to have helped Labor a bit, but it doesn’t seem to have done.

    The bottom line for Labor going forward is that the Australian electorate have made it crystal clear at election since 1983 what they want from Labor in order for the party to be elected at the Federal level.

    They want:
    inspirational leadership focusing on the big picture
    a clear belief in market economics and a tax system that provides an incentive to people who work hard
    a dampener on union militancy and any rhetoric around “socialism”
    a clear concern for the environment
    and, in general, a strong commitment to governing on behalf of all Australians, and not just union members, welfare recipients, the proponents of identity policies, etc.

    And, since 2001, the electorate has also been looking for Labor to show unwavering support for strong border protection.

    It’s a pretty clear formula. I reckon Albo gets it (although I’m not sure that, in his heart of socialist hearts, he really supports it). Anyway, it’s the only way for Labor can hope to win the votes of the people who decide elections.

  17. Astrobleme @ #1108 Tuesday, June 11th, 2019 – 12:41 pm

    C@t

    So how did the Greens do this:

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2019/guide/long

    or this:

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2019/guide/herb

    or this:

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2019/guide/dick

    You’re ascribing huge power to The Greens, when there is no evidence.

    Don’t be disingenuous. I wasn’t talking about those seats in particular. Though it is worth pointing out that Herbert is a Queensland mining seat, mining services mostly, iirc. The other 2 seats were likely affected by the Death Taxes scare campaign.

    I wasn’t speaking in absolute terms, even though that’s what you are trying to get me to subscribe to.

    I also note that you didn’t put up the results for George Christensen’s or Michelle Landry’s seats.

  18. But Labor did not lose the election because of anything the Greens did.

    That’s just garbage, mb. Labor were associated with The Greens because they are both parties of the Left and because people could see The Greens making their demands of Labor before the election and they were repulsed enough by that to think they didn’t want a repeat of 2013 and to turn away from Labor and make sure that it didn’t happen. At least be honest about that much.

  19. Scomo (well, that’s how he signs it) insisting that the talk with Ita is nothing unusual, arranged much earlier (probably), segues quickly into a slap at CFMEU and then into ‘getting down to work’.

    It’s strange how unbelievable I find him.

  20. Astrobleme @ #1105 Tuesday, June 11th, 2019 – 12:33 pm

    C@t

    “The ‘hard data’ you demand (like all Greens you demand Labor supporters jump when you say jump, or you won’t believe them), can be found in the massive swings to the Coalition in the Regional Queensland seats.”

    No, this is not ‘hard data’ – it’s an assumption you have made, that somehow the Greens have forced people who WOULD have voted for Labor to vote for someone else.
    The Greens vote barely changed. Labor’s changed a lot and somehow this is The Greens’ fault?

    You need to do the analysis.

    No, you need to stop demanding absolutes. Or maybe you could actually read what I write. Like I said, and it is boring the hell out of me to have to repeat something for you because it seems as though you are determined not to get it, but, as Julia Gillard said in reference to her downfall as a result of the misogyny attacks, and I am saying wrt the effect of The Greens’ dumb as fuck Stop Adani Convoy during the election…it wasn’t the whole reason but it was a reason.

    Now if you refuse to acknowledge that much then I have no further need to waste my time with you.

  21. Dan Gulberry @ #1108 Tuesday, June 11th, 2019 – 12:36 pm

    The supplementary question is obviously, “What use are Labor without the Greens?”.

    If Labor is truly as weak as you say, surely they need the Greens more than the Greens need Labor. The Greens will stay pretty much as they’ve always been at around 10% of the national vote.

    The Greens will remain at around 10% of the vote because they are poison to a very large chunk of the electorate. We can argue why this is, but there is not much doubt that it is so.

    So it doesn’t really matter whether or not Labor wants to cozy up to the Greens (or vice-versa) – this simply cannot happen, or Labor would just see their vote slide to Green levels.

    Nor does Labor need to do so. They don’t need to convince those voters that vote (1) Green and (2) Labor to change anything. What they need to do is convince those voters that vote (1) Green and (2) Liberal (or some other party) that they are being suckered. The Liberal scrutineers must shake their heads and have a quiet chuckle to themselves every time such a vote passes through their hands. If they care enough about the environment to give their first preference to the Greens, then they should consider giving their next preference to a party that could actually do something about them.

    The key point is that Labor must first of all win government to effect any significant change. The Greens will never do so, with or without Labor. Labor must do this by themselves, and do it by any means available – just as the other side does with such success. If cozying up to the Greens would do it, then so be it. But it would not. If you want to see why, just look at the vitriol between the rusted-on supporters on both sides here on PB. Any formal coalition between Labor and the Greens would tear itself to shreds well before election day. The Greens are not by nature a collegiate party.

    However, while raging against the Greens may make Labor supporters feel better (and vice-versa) it is not really helpful. Labor should simply point out at every opportunity that they are the only party that has both the ambition and the ability to do anything on environmental issues.

    This will begin to resonate as the consequences of global warming become more apparent. And that won’t take long.

  22. Much of the analysis here would require an electorate that was paying close attention to the campaign and policy platforms.

    Evidence emerging suggests the voters likely to swing we’re not!

  23. lizzie @ #1123 Tuesday, June 11th, 2019 – 11:13 am

    Scomo (well, that’s how he signs it) insisting that the talk with Ita is nothing unusual, arranged much earlier (probably), segues quickly into a slap at CFMEU and then into ‘getting down to work’.

    It’s strange how unbelievable I find him.

    He has very little substance. Even empty vessel Hunt seems more substantive by comparison.

  24. There are easy steps to shield public interest journalism from erosion, whether by targeted police raids or the fear that chills free speech

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/11/australias-press-freedom-needs-better-protection-heres-where-to-start?CMP=share_btn_tw

    As each new law was introduced (over 60 and counting), the Australian people were assured that these measures were necessary to fight heinous crimes such as terrorism. The vast powers were recognised to be extreme, but they would be measures of last resort. They would automatically “sunset” after a number of years. Some measures have indeed been used in a restrained way. Take citizenship stripping and the far-reaching preventive restraints under control orders. No law has been allowed to sunset, however, even where independent inquiries have called repeatedly for repeal. Australia’s national security framework grows, it does not shrink, it does not step back.

    Together with Peter Greste, researchers at the University of Queensland are working through our 60-plus national security laws and speaking to leaders in law and journalism to assess how the law could better protect both national security and press freedom. This is a complex exercise. But there are easy steps for government to take right now. Opening the door to a charter of rights or the legislative recognition of press freedom are clear options for the present.

    Rebecca Ananian-Welsh is a senior lecturer with the TC Beirne School of Law at the University of Queensland

  25. @meher baba

    Given what I think will happen to the economy in the next three years, Labor will probably win the 2022 election. Since the sort of people who were instrumental to re-electing the Morrison government expecting the government to keep the economy strong are going to angry if an economic collapse, that I am predicting occurs.

    However a lot of Independents and Greens could be elected to the lower house as well, if Labor is seen as ‘sitting on the fence’ on the issue of climate change. Also there is the reality as I see, that we live in a Murdocracy, which means Labor would need an army of volunteers in the hundreds of thousands willing to actively campaign and hustle for the party in order to overcome it.

    @Zoidlord

    The economy has not been burnt to the grow yet, however I predict it will be in the next two to three years. I expect a lot of tradies, not to mention coal miners to be unemployed. In that sort of economic environment, they will become very receptive to something like a Green New Deal. The mentality being ‘we have nothing to lose’ one.

  26. lizzie says:
    Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 1:13 pm

    Scomo (well, that’s how he signs it) insisting that the talk with Ita is nothing unusual, arranged much earlier (probably), segues quickly into a slap at CFMEU and then into ‘getting down to work’.

    It’s strange how unbelievable I find him.

    Why does he have a Minister for Communications then?
    and
    When was the last time a PM had a formal meeting with the head of the ABC?

    Your doubt and lack of faith in the PM has been noted by the relevant authorities lizzie. 🙂

  27. The sad thing about Labor’s election loss is that it will usher in the small target strategy for oppositions, again. Instead of campaigning on what a useless Government this has been, Labor was out trying to explain what is inexplicable to a disengaged electorate more concerned about food on the table than climate change.

    Australia is clearly about “everyone for themselves” and may well have always been like that with a few notable exceptions (eg 1972).

    My own theory is that the LNP’s victory was very much like Trump’s in USA – ie appealing to the “rust belt” – which in Australia is the Blackbelt (ie coal) and those most likely to be cast asunder as the economy tightens.

    In hindsight, I should have realised that the zenith for Labor under Shorten was the 2016 election.

    One other big lesson – take all polling with a grain of salt.

  28. Asha Leu:

    Otherwise, you make some strong (and depressing) points.

    No, his points are bunkum numerology.

    The Ghost of Elections Past doesn’t pick up a pencil in the voting booth to ensure the Coalition can’t be removed after just two terms. Hell, Howard was nearly kicked out after just one term, losing the 2PP vote in ’98.

    Every election is fought afresh, on the issues of the day, and every election is winnable.

  29. Lynchpin: “Labor was out trying to explain what is inexplicable to a disengaged electorate more concerned about food on the table than climate change.”

    If only it had been true that Labor was trying to explain climate change to the electorate. Instead, they were constantly forced into explaining a tax package that even Shorten didn’t seem to understand too well.

    It wasn’t a conspiracy – involving the Murdoch Media, the Greens or anyone else – it simply was a cock up: Fightback Mark 2. To paraphrase a famous aphorism of Karl Marx, history repeated itself precisely twice: the first time as a farce, and the second time an even bigger farce.

  30. This John Setka story is an interesting case study about Anthony Albanese’s approach to controversy. He isn’t an Asha Leu sort of gormless coward who can’t recognize when to articulate a clear stand. He has been swift and decisive and he has highlighted why the issue is relevant. He seems to have an intuitive feel for this.

  31. Lynchpin
    “The sad thing about Labor’s election loss is that it will usher in the small target strategy for oppositions, again.”

    Oh yeah, you bet. It will be like Rudd 2007: change without change. Same same but different.

    This country is crying out for economic reform. But Federal Labor has been burned, and won’t try that again.

  32. @meher baba

    I am not one who believes in out-there conspiracy theories, I admit Labor made some mistakes which probably cost them the election. However this government has been utterly terrible, arguably the most incompetent since James Scullin’s.

    That makes me wonder how much of an influence News Corporation has over our political system. Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd calls Rupert Murdoch a cancer on our democracy, I am increasingly becoming to believe he is right about the influence Murdoch has through his News Corporation media outlets.

    Political phenomenon such as the election of Donald Trump and Brexit can be argued as well as happened, because of the influence of News Corporation media outlets in Britain and the United States. It is notable nothing like those phenomenon have occurred in New Zealand and Canada, where News Corporation have little presence in the media market.

    If I am right and we live in a Murdocracy, it is going to be an uphill struggle for Labor to win the 2022 election. Combine that with another massive misinformation campaign which the Coalition will wage.

  33. i’m not asking anyone to ‘bow at The Greens’ anything.
    I am debating the meme that is evolving here that the election loss is because of some actions the Greens took. This is a meme that Briefly, Boerwar and Frednk have been mindlessly repeating.

    The ALP is solely to blame for crashing to 33 percent of the primary vote.

    They have abundant institutional advantages as one of the top two major parties in a Two Party Preferred set of House contests. The Greens would love to have those advantages but have to go without. So instead of whining about the Greens, who had nothing to do with the ALP’s failure, and who are far less privileged than the ALP in the political system, the ALP just needs to roll up its sleeves and get back to work.

    It is perfectly legitimate and valid for the Greens’ campaigning to highlight failures and complacency on the part of the two major parties. The Greens are not particularly harsh about the ALP – the criticisms are reasonable and meritorious.

    You cannot expect a party in an election campaign for the Commonwealth Parliament to avoid voicing valid criticisms of other competitors.

    The Greens’ criticisms of the ALP are substantive.

    If the ALP had been more vigorous and articulate they would have been able to get their message across.

  34. caf says:
    Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 1:46 pm
    —————————————

    You don’t think Labor’s record of just 10 wins out of the 28 elections from WW2 to 2016 (35.7%, to the Coalition’s 64.3%) was worth taking into account when forming an expectation of the result of the 2019 election? Or Labor’s record of winning just 3 out of the 17 elections (17.6%) where the Coalition went in as incumbents? Or Labor’s record of winning zero elections out of 5 since 1914 (!) where a two-term conservative government faced the voters?

    As I said before, this pattern can’t justify an assertion of a deterministic “law of history”, so you can tuck away that straw man you put up. But it does justify us in saying it was “unusual, not to be expected” for Labor to win this year.

  35. C@

    It’s a one way street. We Laborites are being asked to throw sackcloth and ashes around and admit that we stuffed up badly. The Greens, however, know that they didn’t do a single thing wrong, ever, because, well, they’re Green, so expecting them to own up to a fault is personally insulting them.

    I’ve actually found, in life, that refusing to admit that you were wrong in anyway is a sign of huge insecurity. You’re not sure what IS right or wrong, so you cling to what you’ve decided is right at all costs, because if any of it is wrong it might all be… Secure people can cope with finding out that they’re not faultless, because they always knew that anyway.

  36. Nicholas
    ‘The Greens’ criticisms of the ALP are substantive.”

    How about you go after the real enemy (the LNP) instead of biting the hand that feeds you.

    Honestly, you Greens are nice enough people (most of the time). But you live on a different planet.

    And don’t get me started on that f*cken Adani convey. Sheesh, WTF.

  37. The more ALP stooges attack the Greens the more it highlights that the Greens are not run by SDA operatives, Kimberley Kitching type social conservatives. Inner city greens will never vote for such types.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *