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.
adrian @ #1347 Sunday, September 8th, 2019 – 4:18 pm
I am finding them quite entertaining. Not to say eye-opening!
In WA, carbon pricing has been determinedly omitted from the State platform. I do know what’s in the platform and what we’re committed to doing here. We will accelerate the adoption of renewables right across the generation sector. We will promote mitigation efforts. We will fund these. We will fund transition from coal. We have banned the issue of new fracking permits – effectively prevents fracking in 1/3 of the Australian landmass. We will invest in and create jobs in environmental protection.
Others can look with affection on the past. We have our eyes on relevant action in the future.
We are not suckers for Greenery in WA Labor. Not at all.
Sanders and Warren should quit now and throw their full weight behind Biden in order to knock off Trump which is surely the number 1 priority.
If they keep doing what they are now they are Trump’s electoral besties.
Final tally: Sarah Henderson 234
Greg Mirabella: 197 @abcmelbourne
Boer…..I like Warren and her chances….rising approval….very low disapproval….will mobilise the Democratic base….will unify the activist base…
Whilst Dotard obsesses over the correctness of his hurricane warning to Alabama, his F Troop people are dissembling…
“Washington(CNN) Long-simmering tensions between top figures on President Donald Trump’s national security team have devolved into all-out hostility, creating a deep disconnect between staffers on the National Security Council, led by John Bolton, and the rest of the administration, six people familiar with the matter said.
While there’s been friction between Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for months, as CNN first reported in May, things have gotten worse recently. Bolton and Pompeo rarely speak outside of formal meetings, three of the sources said, including a recent stretch of going weeks without speaking to one another. That has left key coordination efforts between the White House and State Department to underlings.
There’s also a rift between Bolton and Trump’s acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who oversees the West Wing. Mulvaney has clashed with Bolton over ideological differences in recent months and sought to distance himself from the embattled national security adviser.”
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/06/politics/bolton-pompeo-not-speaking-tension/index.html?utm_content=2019-09-08T06%3A34%3A05&utm_term=image&utm_source=twCNNp&utm_medium=social
Briefly
I don’t like any of them much but any of them is better than Trump.
Sanders white-anted Clinton last time and Sanders and Warren should learn from that and unite behind Biden.
The Dump Drumpf outcome is more important than their egos.
Victorian Libs may be slowly waking up. If Sophie’s husband had got up, it would really be time to give up.
briefly @ #1352 Sunday, September 8th, 2019 – 4:28 pm
Are you in WA emulating the teachings of your counterparts in Federal Labor? How to have a carbon price while claiming you do not have a carbon price … ?
Isn’t that a corker? No “direct carbon price”, just an “effective carbon price”. Talk about covering all your bases!
If you want to talk about the past, I will remind you of this famous quote:
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
C’mon – admit it. Are you perhaps a Liberal plant, or do you just do this for fun?
‘sprocket_ says:
Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 4:33 pm
Final tally: Sarah Henderson 234
Greg Mirabella: 197 @abcmelbourne’
lose lose for the people of Australia.
I have just watched the part of Landline referred to in
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-08/dollars-from-dirt-the-farmer-making-money-from-healthy-soil/11486346.
It is much more than this article, however, and is all about soil regeneration, enabling more food to be produced in the same area with less use of chemicals and less irrigation.
“Soils for Life” has been given extra funding by the LNP and seems the most sensible thing they have done.
Australian farmers have been engaged in “soil mining” rather than soil regeneration (my thoughts), and just like mineral deposits, fertility is eventually exhausted and carbon is released. I feel very frustrated, as Louis Bromfield’s regeneration of his land in the early 20C laid all this out.
Too much to summarise here, sorry.
How are the Greens going with filling the 150,000 jobs they intend to destroy by killing off the coal industry on Day 1?
Not a problem because this jobs death ride will not affect a single Greens inner urban leafy street voter.
Coral Atolls float?? That is really an absolute hooter. 🙂
lizzie
Didn’t his vote increase in the last election?
Looks like Lambie is going to support an expansion of the Indue Card.
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/expanded-cashless-welfare-card-trial-set-to-pass-parliament-in-days-20190908-p52p5y.html
Pity. If it goes into Tasmania there will be alot of unhappy people correctly blaming her for it.
It will be problematic in the small communities of Tasmania and force people to travel to the bigger centres to find outlets that will accept the card.
laughtong @ #1368 Sunday, September 8th, 2019 – 2:59 pm
Is anyone surprised? Like the tax cuts she’ll probably end up expressing regret some 6 months later.
lizzie @ #1234 Sunday, September 8th, 2019 – 4:41 pm
I just watched the report on Landline and I guess it didn’t hurt that government support was forthcoming for Soils for Life as a result of its chairman being former Governor General Major General Mike Jeffrey. 😐
I am very sorry to hear about Binna Burra Lodge.
Some of the images in the libraries were captured while we were staying at the Lodge.
I did think at the time that it was awfully vulnerable to bushfires. OTOH, it has been there since the 1930’s.
Lambie has a bad habit of selling her vote too cheaply to this government.
I was at a rural wedding feast over the weekend: several hundred people with the spud shed being the venue.
Top of mind: the drought and MDB water mismanagement.
Global Warming is happening but the cause is not certain, apparently. It is probably still warming after the Last Ice Age and/or the result of natural cycles. They could not give a horse’s arse for the various political gotcha games.
Energy, soil quality, carbon and coal did not get a look in. At all.
C@t
I wasn’t looking at it politically. If the govt does the “right” thing for the wrong reason, I’m happy enough.
Who is Lambie getting advice from, I wonder? Of course, she’s against drug taking after her son’s experience.
lizzie @ #1246 Sunday, September 8th, 2019 – 5:12 pm
That’s true, and Maj Gen Jeffrey is doing it for the right reasons. 🙂
Sanders white-anted Clinton last time
___________________
Is it white anting to run in a primary? Did Clinton attempt to white ant Obama, or did Obama successfully white ant Clinton? I’m confused about the rules of white anting.
C@tmomma @ #1372 Sunday, September 8th, 2019 – 3:09 pm
She appears to revel in the attention and doesn’t realise the consequences of her vote until later when it’s too late.
C@tmomma says:
Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 5:09 pm
Lambie has a bad habit of selling her vote too cheaply to this government.
She’s a Lib. Always has been.
There are too many government actions making me angry atm. But I suppose this is mildly amusing “it doesn’t exclude pornography and tobacco”. So the unemployed are permitted to spend their days smoking and watching porn?
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-cashless-welfare-card-may-not-be-quite-the-success-it-seems-20170906-gybm0q.html
Boerwar @ #1373 Sunday, September 8th, 2019 – 5:11 pm
It’s not often you see such a clear example of evolution in action 🙁
Player One/ Briefly:
IF it is NOW the case that the cost of electricity generation from renewables (inc storage as required to ensure availability) is below the cost of coal fired generation from fully depreciated plant (not a “fair” comparison, but the world is not fair) then Briefly is correct (in isolation) that imposing a tax on carbon emissions from electricity generation will NOW act as price support to the competing renewables generation. This will both:
– limit the extent to which price competition from renewable generation drives down retail electricity prices (quite limited anyway as most of the price is in transmission and distribution)
– reduce the incentive for renewable electricity generators to cut costs of production further (via tech innovation)
This is completely straightforward and arises from the (apparent) fact that the situation has changed since 2013 in that renewable generation is now cheaper, whereas then it was more expensive. If the facts change, the conclusions often do too. It follows that applying an carbon tax to electricity generation in isolation is now counterproductive (whereas it was useful right up to the point that renewables cost fell below that of coal)
However, the electricity market is not isolated from the rest of the economy, and perverse effects can undoubtedly arise from a situation where non-electricity carbon emissions (which would driven down by a carbon tax, without perverse side effects) are taxed but electricity related emissions are not (one would find that a whole of emissions became “electricity related” overnight, for example).
Sick of Briefly confidently predict the future?
Welcome to BrieflyCheck, where we examine the prognostications of the prognosticator of prognosticators.
Episode 1. Briefly predicts Christian Porter is ‘cactus’ in Pearce.
briefly
says:
Monday, November 19, 2018 at 11:19 am
I think he’s cactus. He’s fighting, but will fall short. The mood for change is real on the northern front.
Result: FAIL. Porter is re-elected on a 3.89% 2PP swing. Making Pearce Very Safe Liberal.
there was no mood for change on the northern front.
Jacque Lambie has sewn up a Tasmanian Senate seat for as long as she wants it – and Tasmanian’s are second only to PNGers in Cargo Cult mentality. You don’t need much, just keep it coming at regular intervals.
Curious that Lambie is considering associating herself with Indue….and all its connections to the Lib/Nats. something that could come back an bite her on the arse.
Now does this remind anyone of our Tasmanian friends and the charismatic Jacqui Lambie?
“A cargo cult is a belief system among members of a relatively undeveloped society in which adherents practice superstitious rituals hoping to bring modern goods supplied by a more technologically advanced society. These cults, millenarian in nature, were first described in Melanesia in the wake of contact with advanced Western cultures. The name derives from the belief which began among Melanesians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that various ritualistic acts such as the building of an airplane runway will result in the appearance of material wealth, particularly highly desirable Western goods (i.e., “cargo”), via Western airplanes.[1][2]
Cargo cults often develop during a combination of crises. Under conditions of social stress, such a movement may form under the leadership of a charismatic figure. This leader may have a “vision” (or “myth-dream”) of the future, often linked to an ancestral efficacy (“mana”) thought to be recoverable by a return to traditional morality.[1][3] This leader may characterize the present state as a dismantling of the old social order, meaning that social hierarchy and ego boundaries have been broken down.[4]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult
That doesn’t sound right. Even if renewables already have a cost advantage over fossil fuels, surely a carbon tax or price would increase that advantage by making fossil fuel power more expensive. That would make renewable power even more attractive by comparison, which would increase investment in renewables.
Personally I believe that laws, regulations, and publicly owned and controlled assets are the most powerful tools for reducing emissions quickly and drastically. A carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme is a relatively weak mechanism inspired by neoliberal assumptions about how governments should behave.
Another BoJo Cabinet Minister resigns, and explains why…
E. G. Theodore @ #1383 Sunday, September 8th, 2019 – 5:35 pm
Breifly’s premise is not true, and neither is his conclusion.
Anybody who thinks the cost of generating electricity is related to its price has not been paying attention to the Australian electricity market for the last few decades.
It is just another Labor talking point, being promulgated by the coal-based states (Qld, Vic & WA) to avoid any meaningful action 🙁
For the pleasure of the bludgers….
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/05/29/renewable-energy-costs-tumble/#4febab5be8ce
It’s difficult to assemble a majority in favour of action with respect to climate change. This being so, it’s important to take action that is both relevant and effective. The Green campaign is neither. It is not an environmental campaign. It is a political campaign aimed at defeating Labor and therefore at obstructing action.
It’s obviously highly desirable to maintain the system that is driving down the costs of renewables while also expanding their reach…a system that will lead to the most rapid and widespread displacement of fossil fuel derived power.
briefly @ #1394 Sunday, September 8th, 2019 – 6:10 pm
As usual, you seem to have missed that one important little word … “new” …
Even RenewEconomy doesn’t tend to make such a newbie mistake any more 🙁
Of course, to reiterate, it is not going to be sufficient simply to replace fossil fuels with renewables. We have to withdraw CO2 from the atmosphere and reform land use more generally. This is just as important as transforming the electricity and transport sectors.
briefly @ #1395 Sunday, September 8th, 2019 – 6:13 pm
Not so. Your problem is that you are looking at the wrong demographic. It is quite easy to do this amongst younger voters who understand the benefits as well as the costs.
But perhaps less so among coal miners and those approaching retirement age, who only see the costs and not the benefits.