ANU post-election survey and Essential Research poll

Comprehensive new research suggests a telling shift from the “others” column to the Coalition through the campaign period, while Labor were either consistently overrated by pollsters or fell off a cliff at the end.

Some particularly interesting post-election research has emerged in the shape of a paper from Nicholas Biddle at the Australian National University’s Centre for Social Research and Methods. This draws from the centre’s regular online panel surveys on social attitudes, which encompasses a question on voting intention for reasons unrelated to prediction of election results. The study compares results for 1692 respondents who completed both its pre- and post-election surveys, which were respectively conducted from April 8 to 26 (encompassing the start of the campaign on April 11) and June 3 to 17 (commencing a fortnight after the election). Respondents were excluded altogether if they were either ineligible to vote or failed to answer the voting intention question.

The results are, to a point, consistent with the possibility that pollsters were confounded by a last minute shift to the Coalition, particularly among those who had earlier been in the “others” column. The changes can be summarised as follows, keeping in mind that a “don’t know” response for the April survey was at 2.9%, and 6.5% in the June survey said they did not vote. Since the disparity leaves a net 3.6% of the total vote unaccounted for, the shifts identified below will err on the low side.

The Coalition vote increased an estimated 2.6% from the time of the April survey, suggesting the polls were right to be recording them at around 38% at that time, if not later. However, no movement at all was recorded in the Labor vote, suggesting they were always about four points short of the 37% most polls were crediting them with. The exception here was Ipsos, which had Labor at 33% or 34% in all four of the polls from the start of the year. The Greens fell very slightly, suggesting a poll rounding to whole numbers should have had them at 11% early in the campaign. Newspoll consistently had it at 9%, Ipsos at 13% or 14%, and Essential fluctuated between 9% and 12%.

The biggest move was the 5.9% drop in support for “others”, although a fair bit of this wound up in the “did not vote” column. Even so, it can conservatively be said that pollsters in April should have been rating “others” at around four points higher than their actual election result of 15%, when they were actually coming in only one point higher. This three point gap is reflected in the size of the overestimation of support for Labor.

The results also point to a remarkably high degree of churn — an estimated 28.5% did not stick with the voting intention expressed in April, albeit that a little more than a fifth of this subset did so by not voting at all. The sub-sample of vote changers is small, but it offers little to suggest voters shifted from Labor to the Coalition in particularly large numbers. The Coalition recorded the lowest rate of defection, although the difference with Labor was not statistically significant (I presume it’s normal for major party supporters to be more constant than minor). Conversely, 49.4% of those who left the “others” column went to the Coalition (which comes with a 9% margin of error), and most of the remainder did not vote.

The survey also features statistical analysis to determine the demographic characteristics of vote changers. These find that older voters were generally less likely to be vote changers, and that young vote changers tended not to do so in favour of the Coalition, presumably switching for the most part between Labor and the Greens. Also particularly unlikely to budge were Coalition voters who lived in areas of socio-economic advantage. Those at the other end of this scale, regardless of party support, were most volatile.

Also out this week was the regular fortnightly Essential Research survey, which is still yet to resume its voting intention series but will do so soon. A question on the anticipated impact of government policies over the next three years produces encouraging numbers for the government, with 41% positive and 23% negative. A question on racist sentiments finds 36% agreeing that Australia is a racist country, and 50% saying it is less racist than it was in the past. Breakdowns record no significant differences between those of migrant and non-migrant backgrounds, although the former may include too many of British origin for the results to be particularly revealing.

A question on political interest finds only 15% professing no interest in federal politics, with 53% saying they follow it closely or “enough to know what’s happening”. A big question though is whether polling has gone astray because too many such people are included in their samples. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1075 respondents drawn from an online panel.

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.

1,483 comments on “ANU post-election survey and Essential Research poll”

  1. Sprocket

    To be clear. Labor has to be aware of that conservative religious vote in its seats. All it has to do is remember that it works best when Labor fights for human rights because those same electorates are highly impacted by the abuse of human rights that racism represents.

    Fight for the principle of human rights and Labor wins.

  2. Confessions says:
    Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 11:32 am

    Barney:

    I had the wrong place – I was looking at Penang.

    😆
    I thought so. 🙂

  3. briefly @ #1193 Sunday, September 8th, 2019 – 11:34 am

    In Rexology to speak the facts about Australian coal exports is to be a climate change denier.

    This is another Green lie. Just another one in the endless list of Green lies. The Greens have introduced a totally pernicious set of false equivalences in our political life. They have to be defeated.

    There needs to be a plan of transitioning coal related jobs to good paying clean green jobs that are sustainable.

    The LibNats and Labor have no such plan.

    Meanwhile, we continue to have unprecedented climate warming related natural disasters that destroys our environment and is sending us broke.

  4. In Rexology, the fact that Labor governments are spending money on transition from coal in WA and Queensland is proof they have no policies for transition from coal.

    In Rexology, lying about Labor and climate change is proof the Greens are telling the truth about Labor and climate change.

    In Rexology, when Labor take actions to expand renewables and to inhibit GHG emissions-growth, this is proof that Labor are doing nothing to expand renewables or take actions to inhibit emissions growth.

    In Rexology, lies about Labor always win.

  5. lizzie @ #1197 Sunday, September 8th, 2019 – 11:40 am

    Gotta preserve that useless surplus, eh, Josh?

    The Victorian government will put in $3m for crisis response to support asylum seekers hit by federal government cuts.

    In 2017 the federal government announced it was tightening requirements for the status resolution support services payments for asylum seekers on bridging visas, which came into effect in 2018.

    The payment was about $35 a day for just over 13,000 people, and also provided access to trauma and torture counselling services and case management support. Advocates said the restrictions cut the number of people on the program to about 5,000.

    A report last year found the change put close to 80% of asylum seekers who were on the payment at risk of homelessness.

    Last year a Refugee Council of Australia report found the cuts, which were aimed at moving refugees off the payment and into employment, simply shifted the cost from the federal government to state governments and charity organisations.

    It was estimated the cuts would cost state and territory governments between $80m and $120m a year in additional funding for health, corrective services and homelessness programs.

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/08/victoria-gives-3m-to-cover-payments-to-6000-asylum-seekers-on-bridging-visas?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=soc_568&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1567905974

    When we privileged citizens cry for tax relief we often don’t consider the humanitarian consequences.

  6. Jolyon Wagg @ #1199 Sunday, September 8th, 2019 – 11:39 am

    GG

    Didn’t take you long to introduce your obsession about religion did it? The article was on the ABC web site. So, it must be true.

    Did you even read the article you linked? It does not suggest that peoples concerns about climate change are unrealistic. All it does is outline that some people are upset about the potential impacts of climate change and suggests some coping mechanisms. There was nothing in the article that seemed particularly contentious.

    For the record, I reckon the tambourine whacking behaviour of our resident Climate Change Catastrophists is more akin to cultish behavior fuelled by a perverse interpretation of standard religious texts.

    This really is laughable gibberish. Could you provide some more entertainment by nominating the standard religious texts that you are referring to?

    Yes, I well understand your intolerance of alternative points of view. I was not surprised when your first and second responses to information you don’t like is to attack other posters rather than their arguments. Maybe that tambourine your whacking has affected your senses more than you think.

  7. briefly @ #1202 Sunday, September 8th, 2019 – 11:50 am

    In Rexology, the fact that Labour governments are spending money on transition from coal in WA and Queensland is proof they have no policies for transition from coal.

    In Rexology, lying about Labor and climate change is proof the Greens are telling the truth about Labor and climate change.

    In Rexology, when Labor take actions to expand renewables and to inhibit GHG emissions-growth, this is proof that Labor are doing nothing to expand renewables or take actions to inhibit emissions growth.

    In Rexology, lies about Labor always win.

    Emissions are going up !

    The transition needs to not take decades.

  8. Rex

    When we privileged citizens cry for tax relief we often don’t consider the humanitarian consequences.

    Speak for yourself. I’d rather cut out the ‘we’.

  9. In Rexology, whenever emissions go up Labor is to blame.
    In Rexology, whenever a Korean or Japanese power station burns coal, Labor is to blame.
    In Rexology, whenever a ship sails Labor is to blame.

    Rexology is a copy of Lib-ology. In Lib-ology, whenever anything goes wrong at any time or in any place, Labor is to blame.

    In both Lib-ology and Rexology, whenever anything goes wrong, unions are to blame; working people are to blame; Labor are to blame.

    In both Lib-ology and Rexology, it’s always better to blame the enemy, Labor, than to take action.

  10. GG

    Yes, I well understand your intolerance of alternative points of view. I was not surprised when your first and second responses to information you don’t like is to attack other posters rather than their arguments. Maybe that tambourine your whacking has affected your senses more than you think.

    If you actually read my last post you will see that I had no objection to the information in the article that you linked to. I only objected your interpretation of it.

    Perhaps if you flesh out the following “argument” you can make it into something that seems worth attacking:

    For the record, I reckon the tambourine whacking behaviour of our resident Climate Change Catastrophists is more akin to cultish behavior fuelled by a perverse interpretation of standard religious texts.

    It would be a start to nominate the religious texts you are referring to.

  11. briefly @ #1209 Sunday, September 8th, 2019 – 12:01 pm

    In Rexology, whenever emissions go up Labor is to blame.
    In Rexology, whenever a Korean or Japanese power station burns coal, Labor is to blame.
    In Rexology, whenever a ship sails Labor is to blame.

    Rexology is a copy of Lib-ology. In Lib-ology, whenever anything goes wrong at any time or in any place, Labor is to blame.

    In both Lib-ology and Rexology, whenever anything goes wrong, unions are to blame; working people are to blame; Labor are to blame.

    In both Lib-ology and Rexology, it’s always better to blame the enemy, Labor, than to take action.

    The duopoly is to blame.

    The question is… why do 75% of voters continue to vote for policies that are destroying our society and environment ?

  12. @realCarrickRyan
    · 13h
    So Peter Dutton just did a commercial for a small company called SCD American Vehicles.

    Perhaps these photos might give you a clue why.

    This is their owner, Eddie Kocwa.

    Suddenly it makes perfect sense.

    ***

    ShiannonCorcoran @ShiannonC
    11h
    Peter Dutton associated with the white power symbol.-intentionally or unintentionally -it’s there for all to see. That stupid hand signal must be a measurement of the pea size of their brains.

  13. lizzie

    Tax relief is code for tax cuts.

    When you are going after wealth inequality which Labor is rightly trying to do tax relief means your simple message gets complicated.

    KISS

    No tax relief. Just tax the wealthy is enough. As the LNP has proven. Give the complication of tax relief as Labor did in the last election and Labor still gets called the high tax party anyway.

    Edit: So argue for the Scandinavian model not the US one.

  14. In Rexology, when Labor take action to secure the environment and to mitigate the effects of climate change, it is proof that Labor are destroying the atmosphere. In Lib-ology, when Labor take these actions it is proof that Labor is destroying jobs.

    In Rexology as in Lib-ology, Labor do too little and they do too much. These are the lies of the Lib-kin and the Lib-Libs.

  15. Greensborough Growler @ #1157 Sunday, September 8th, 2019 – 10:50 am

    You can accept that Climate Change is happening and not need to be totally obsessed with extreme solutions like closing down all coal yesterday.

    I have not called for all coal to be closed down, or for it to be closed down “yesterday”. You damage your own position when you so clearly have to overstate your opponents position to make a point.

    However, I will say that there is no reason – economic or otherwise – for us to continue to burn brown coal just to generate electricity. We could eliminate that very rapidly if we wanted to. Some people clearly just don’t want to. But why not? Given how damaging brown coal is for so many reasons (i.e. not just because of climate change) I would like to hear how anyone can justify continuing to burn it when there are several better alternatives. I certainly can’t see how any Labor person can do so, since the people who are worst affected by the consequences of mining and burning brown coal are the very people Labor claims to be its constituency.

    One is also entitled to be sceptical that your Armageddonist predictions of doom and destruction are the only likely outcome for our planet unless we adopt your extremist propositions to address the issue of Climate Change.

    See, here’s where you go wrong every time. These are not my predictions. These are the predictions of those scientists that study the subject and know a lot more about it than either of us. The difference is that I believe the scientific consensus, whereas you apparently do not. How ironic is that?

    You may think you’re PB’s pet Prophet of Doom on this subject. But, like many in the mainstream of Australian life, I find the whole in your face dramatics, hysterics and virtue signalling a bore.

    Again, you seem to think that I am making predictions. I have not had to do so for a long time, because there are so many others now doing so who are much better qualified than I am to do so.

    Do you for instance also regard the IPCC as “Prophets of Doom”?

    For better or worse, I’m guessing the world will stumble through this issue like they stumble through every other issue.

    This is just a dumb response, given that we have never faced an imminent existential threat before – especially as it is one that we actually know is coming, and what we have to do to avoid it.

  16. briefly @ #1159 Sunday, September 8th, 2019 – 10:52 am

    The Australian electorate have been profoundly misled by the Lib-kin campaign against coal. The implicit claim of this campaign is that Queensland coal is almost entirely responsible by itself for global heating, and therefore climate catastrophe could be avoided by closure of the industry.

    What a load of utter bollocks.

    You need to go back to Labor HQ and get a new set of talking points. The current ones are not working, and – worse – are just making you all look ridiculous.

  17. lizzie

    An example of how Bernie Sanders is campaigning. Labor could use some of his examples even if not arguing for a socialist utopia.

    @BernieSanders tweets

    The average cost of college tuition in:
    Denmark: $0 / year
    Finland: $0 / year
    Germany: $0 / year
    Norway: $0 /year
    Poland: $0 / year
    Sweden: $0 / year
    United States: $8,202 / year

    College for All is not an impossible idea.

  18. The combustion of coal for thermal purposes is demand side matter. There is no shortage of coal. There are many possible sources of supply of coal. Its extraction will decline when and as demand for it declines. This is happening. It will continue to happen completely separately from anything that is done in the coal provinces of Queensland or NSW.

    In Victoria and WA coal combustion for thermal purposes is on its last legs. This is also the case in many industrial jurisdictions, even though coal deposits are located close to industrial and population centres.

    The focus on Australian seaborne coal is a Green herring.

    Even if the entire Australian export sector were to close tomorrow – if supply were to be banned – this would make no difference to global GHG emissions. This is partly because they comprise only a very small share of global GHG emissions. It is partly because alternative sources for coal would be found.

    The discomforting truth is that dealing with global heating is more complex than putting an embargo on coal. The further discomforting truth is that the focus on coal by the Lib-kin has contributed to the postponement of effective action by the Federal Government.

    The campaign against coal in Queensland by the Greens has helped cement the Liberals in office. True story.

  19. I see briefly is still arguing against Kevin Rudd Bill Shorten and Anthony Albanese supporting international treaties because they curb demand on coal.

  20. Greensborough Growler @ #1173 Sunday, September 8th, 2019 – 11:11 am

    For the record, I reckon the tambourine whacking behaviour of our resident Climate Change Catastrophists is more akin to cultish behavior fuelled by a perverse interpretation of standard religious texts.

    Is this supposed to be me? I am not quite sure, because I don’t even own a tambourine! 🙂

  21. Queensland is obviously Labor’s Achilles’ heel and will most likely remain so. In the 2016 election, its primary vote was 30.9%, dipping to 27.3% at the last election, losing two seats (Longman and Herbert). The key issue for regional and rural Queensland was/is jobs. Brown’s Adani convoy, coupled with Labor’s mixed messages on coal and the environment proved its undoing. Look, for example, at the swings to Landry, Christensen, O’Dowd. Further, the preference flows from Palmer and PHON favoured the Tories. And, I think it will be more bad news for state Labor at next year’s election. Climate change is an existential threat, but if voters think that their livelihoods are at risk, as they did/do in Queensland, Labor, if it is to claw back votes, must be cognisant of their fears. Albanese would do well to spend a lot of time in Queensland, armed with policies that appeal to us banana benders.

  22. GG

    For the record, I reckon the tambourine whacking behaviour of our resident Climate Change Catastrophists is more akin to cultish behavior fuelled by a perverse interpretation of standard religious texts.

    P1

    Is this supposed to be me? I am not quite sure, because I don’t even own a tambourine!

    Actually I think the instrument traditionally favoured by catastrophists is the hand-held gong. I don’t think a tambourine would be very effective.

  23. Mavis

    Labor has to give Queensland and in fact Australia a secure economic future without coal.
    This can be done incrementally.
    First thing to do is no new regulatory approval for coal expansion.
    Thats the start of a natural incremental transition. This gives time for renewable technology with far greater job growth and other industries to take over.

    This does not prematurely send coal workers to the scrap heap. Instead it gives them a way out.
    Thats the point. Government cannot give regulatory approval for expansion of coal. It will have trading consequences when the world reacts.

    Already we see the EU wanting to put trading sanctions in place due to our fuel emissions standards with cars.

  24. briefly @ #1221 Sunday, September 8th, 2019 – 12:26 pm

    The combustion of coal for thermal purposes is demand side matter. There is no shortage of coal. There are many possible sources of supply of coal. It’s extraction will decline when and as demand for it declines. This is happening. It will continue to happen completely separately from anything that is done in the coal provinces of Queensland or NSW.

    In Victoria and WA coal combustion for thermal purposes is on its last legs. This is also the case in many industrial jurisdictions, even though coal deposits are located close to industrial and population centres.

    The focus on Australian seaborne coal is a Green herring.

    Even if the entire Australian export sector were to close tomorrow – if supply were to be banned – this would make no difference to global GHG emissions. This is partly because they comprise only a very small share of global GHG emissions. It is partly because alternative sources for coal would be found.

    The discomforting truth is that dealing with global heating is more complex than putting an embargo on coal. The further discomforting truth is that the focus on coal by the Lib-kin has contributed to the postponement of effective action by the Federal Government.

    The campaign against coal in Queensland by the Greens has helped cement the Liberals in office. True story.

    The truth is you’re trying to defend policy that has this country profiting from the offshore burning of our thermal coal which is large contributor in warming our climate to catastrophic levels.

    No-one should defend our export of both environmental and humanitarian destruction.

  25. briefly @ #1224 Sunday, September 8th, 2019 – 12:26 pm

    The campaign against coal in Queensland by the Greens has helped cement the Liberals in office. True story.

    Honestly, briefly. Find another record. This one is worn out. Even the Queensland Labor party themselves acknowledge they lost (in part) because they kept sending ambiguous messages on coal.

    But the answer is not, as you are doing, to jump on the “Australian Coal is good for the planet” bandwagon.

    That just makes you look like a nong.

  26. The implicit Lib-kin claim is that Queensland coal mining and exports are responsible for the destruction of the GBR, for example. This is a false claim. Even if there had never been a single tonne of coal mined in Queensland, the GBR would still be at risk of destruction. Things are more complicated than the Lib-kin claim. This is obvious in the mathematics. But you’d never know it from the political exploitation raised by the Green fantasy-campaigns.

  27. guytaur @ #1228 Sunday, September 8th, 2019 – 12:34 pm

    Mavis

    Labor has to give Queensland and in fact Australia a secure economic future without coal.
    This can be done incrementally.
    First thing to do is no new regulatory approval for coal expansion.
    Thats the start of a natural incremental transition. This gives time for renewable technology with far greater job growth and other industries to take over.

    This does not prematurely send coal workers to the scrap heap. Instead it gives them a way out.
    Thats the point. Government cannot give regulatory approval for expansion of coal. It will have trading consequences when the world reacts.

    Already we see the EU wanting to put trading sanctions in place due to our fuel emissions standards with cars.

    The LibNats and Labor are hopelessly addicted to their coal-related political donors.

  28. No-one is defending coal. The claim that Australian thermal coal exports are a ‘large contributor’ to global heating is just a lie. It is a completely false claim. It is a claim advanced for political reasons in Rexology, which is aimed at defeating Labor.

  29. briefly @ #1234 Sunday, September 8th, 2019 – 12:38 pm

    The implicit Lib-kin claim is that Queensland coal mining and exports are responsible for the destruction of the GBR, for example. This is a false claim. Even if there had never been a single tonne of coal mined in Queensland, the GBR would still be at risk of destruction. Things are more complicated than the Lib-kin claim. This is obvious in the mathematics. But you’d never know it from the political exploitation raised by the Green fantasy-campaigns.

    More bollocks.

    I guess you don’t realize it – and nor do you probably care – but you are actually doing the Labor party more harm than good with these illogical rants 🙁

  30. Player One….my assertions on coal and Queensland politics might bore you but they are novel when compared to the endless lying propagated by the Lib-kin and the Lib-Libs.

    The campaign against coal is not an environmental campaign. It is a political campaign. It is only intended to harm Labor, which is the only party capable of doing anything to secure the environment. To that extent, the coal campaign is an anti-environment campaign. It is self-defeating. It is idiotic.

  31. briefly

    For a while I thought you’d pulled back on the “Lib-kin” naming. We all get your message, which would be much clearer if you just wrote “Greens”. I used to think you were interesting. It’s a shame, but I just scroll past your posts now.

  32. Briefly

    Immediate consequence of giving regulatory approval for Adani. That is expanding new coal opportunities in Queensland.

    China gains the pacific as Pacific Islands reject Australia we are alright Jack stuff you in the pacific.

  33. guytaur:

    [‘Labor has to give Queensland and in fact Australia a secure economic future without coal.
    This can be done incrementally.’]

    In an ideal world, yes, that’s the way to go. Queensland, though, is a different kettle of fish, the competing imperatives of climate change v jobs almost intractable, and very difficult when in opposition. That lump of coal Morrison brought into the House was far more than a stunt.

  34. briefly @ #1238 Sunday, September 8th, 2019 – 12:44 pm

    Player One….my assertions on coal and Queensland politics might bore you but they are novel when compared to the endless lying propagated by the Lib-kin and the Lib-Libs.

    They don’t bore me as much as simply amaze me. How anyone can write a sentence, for example, that begins “The implicit Lib-kin claim is that Queensland coal mining and exports are responsible for the destruction of the GBR …” is … well, as I said … amazing.

    It is just so wrong in so many respects that I don’t even know where to begin with it 🙁

    The campaign against coal is not an environmental campaign. It is a political campaign. It is only intended to harm Labor, which is the only party capable of doing anything to secure the environment. To that extent, the coal campaign is an anti-environment campaign. It is self-defeating. It is idiotic.

    The campaign against coal is not environmental. Riiiight.

    And the campaign in favor of coal being waged by Labor partisans here and elsewhere is not a political campaign?

    Again … I find it amazing that you could start a paragraph with sentences such as these and expect to be taken seriously 🙁

  35. Mavis

    See Franklin Dam.
    See Tasmania Forest Wars.

    Economics of certain job workers has to take second place to national interests and yes the politics can get very very bitter.

    Labor has to bite the bullet though. It has to tell the coal workers the truth. The start is the automation story and that court case where Adani actually outlined under oath how few jobs are being created.
    Labor has to start quoting court documents. Just point out this is the under oath statement and the media is left with no where to run on the massive jobs creation lie.

  36. lizzie….there is a surfeit of Rexology, nathematics, Pegaloguery, guytaurmania, Quollery, foxism….the lies they propagate about Labor are exasperating. In their garden we are all fucked.

  37. guytaur:

    @BernieSanders tweets

    The average cost of college tuition in:
    Denmark: $0 / year
    Finland: $0 / year
    Germany: $0 / year
    Norway: $0 /year
    Poland: $0 / year
    Sweden: $0 / year
    United States: $8,202 / year

    College for All is not an impossible idea.

    No-one in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, Poland, Sweden etc thinks that the cost of “college tuition” is $0. Senator Sanders is confusing price and cost. I would guess he is doing it deliberately in order to ensure that his supporters remain “pure” (i.e. only those who accept an obvious untruth) and in particular to exclude the 80% of people who can and do make such a distinction. This ensures his support for the most part remains confined to students (who have yet to grow up) and well-off wankers (who will never grow up), exactly as he wants it. This serves the interests of others too, though I would not claim (as others have) that this support is witting.

  38. Tom NicholsVerified account@RadioFreeTom
    51m51 minutes ago
    If a Democrat manages to beat Trump in 2020, they’ll have a massive political clean-up job ahead of them. They’ll also have a built-in explanation for why they’ll have a tough first year as they try to set the government back on the rails and flush out the kooks and cronies.

    They’ll have a built in explanation for having more than just a first tough year. More like a tough first term, such is the damage Trump has wreaked!

Leave a Reply

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