I’ve been too consumed by the minutiae of the count to have accumulated any deep thoughts about the result, or even the polls. But I can recommend the assessment of Matthew Knott of Nine Newspapers, for identifying the relevance of Nate Silver’s axiom that “almost all polling errors occur in the opposite direction to commentators’ predictions”. A case in point being my own instinct that Labor couldn’t possibly doing as well as as BludgerTrack’s end-of-campaign reading of the situation, which gave Labor a lead of 53.2-47.8. My own projection of the national result currently has it at 54.2-45.8, but this is generally reckoned (in both senses) too conservative — a display at The Guardian appears to have it at around 54.6-45.4. On either reading, this is Labor’s best result since 1943, and was exceeded in this time by the Coalition only in 1966 and 1975. The primary vote, of course, is another matter — Labor’s currently stands at 34.7%, compared with BludgerTrack’s 32.6%; the Coalition is at 32.2%, by far the worst result in its modern history, compared with BludgerTrack’s 32.9%; while the Greens and One Nation are at 11.8% and 6.3%, compared with BludgerTrack’s 12.5% and 8.0%.
Not everyone agrees with me about this, but I don’t think it can reasonably be described as any sort of failure on the part of the Australian polling industry. In dismissing the notion that even its 2019 performance counted as such, Nate Silver pointed out that its roughly 3% error was exactly normal by international standards — though this rather glossed over the extent to which the industry’s failure on that occasion lay in the herding-related uniformity in the size and direction of its error. There were at least a few suspicions abroad that something similar was happening this time, and a general reluctance to believe what some polls were seeing — including some mid-campaign blowouts from Roy Morgan that were hardly credited by anyone at the time, but which proved about on the money — may have helped prevent polls and their aggregates from landing nearer the mark.
As it stands, the measure of any given pollster’s accuracy relative to its rivals was a simple function of how high it came in for Labor. As The Guardian’s display shows, line honours were shared by Resolve Strategic, RedBridge Group and Roy Morgan, and trailing the field was the Coalition’s hapless internal pollsters, Freshwater Strategy (apart from an Ipsos poll that was apparently half a point worse in having Labor’s lead at 51-49, which is news to me — the only polling I’m aware from it at any point during the term was limited to leaders’ ratings). Not included in this assessment was RedBridge Group/Accent Research tracking polling, which did very well for much of the campaign in pointing to a 3.5% Labor swing across 20 marginal seats that ended up swinging 4%, only to fall short with a 2% swing at the last. As an indication of how much better the polling industry performed than certain other areas of the media-political complex, the publisher that commissioned this polling persistently instructed readers to share its delusion that it pointed to a Labor minority government.
Another aspect worth noting of the news media’s horse race coverage was its acceptance of the Coalition’s claim that polling was failing to measure a revolutionary transformation in preference flows, such that the precedent of 2022 offered no guide on this score. Pollsters did in fact tweak their preference models in anticipation of weaker flows to Labor — BludgerTrack’s relatively good performance on two-party preferred had a lot to do with its persistence in applying 2022 election flows, which I must confess was more down to indolence than insight. We won’t actually know the true story here for a couple of months, when the Australian Electoral Commission will provide two-party preferred data from the unprecedented number of seats where the two-candidate counts include independent or minor party candidates, and — better yet — preference flows broken down by party.
We do, however, have 118 seats where the two-candidate counts are between Labor and the Coalition, and from which we can observe how well applying preference flows from 2022 would have done in projecting the two-party preferred. And they do in fact suggest that flows to Labor were quite substantially weaker than last time, such that Labor would have scored 55.4-44.6 across these seats on 2022 preference flows but in fact managed 54.5-45.5.
Is the only reason we don’t have PMs and Leaders of the Opposition from the Senate purely convention?
Both houses still have question time.
Seems like both parties could clear out some dead wood in the Senate and put some more high profile people in (similar to Bob Carr).
Hey Ven if you’re still around.
Are you going to get the knees replaced?
I’m pretty much in the same boat as you.
Getting both knees done.
On the public waiting list, won’t give those private parasites a cent of my money.
Rather pay the excess so it goes to the public.
They say one year wait for knees in the public system, so getting reasonably close after being booked in last September.
Can’t wait, it’s been hell and I know how you’re feeling.
And on that note, that’s my excuse for not fronting the bludger dinner, maybe next year!
Prohibitionistsays:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 9:57 pm
@ Alpha Zero – I heard Lib HQ is focus-testing another Tina Turner classic: “We don’t need another Net Zero”
___________________________________
o/~
I’ve a private members bill, but don’t have the numbers…
The votes in the bush, yeah the votes in the bush, We’ve got not votes in major city limits, no Liberals were allowed win it….
A screaming contest, Michaelia is better than all the rest.
o/~
King OMalleysays:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 10:21 pm
The Howard Effect Hypothesis Test
==========================================================
A problem of cause and effect. Is the seat in trouble because Howard visits it or does Howard get sent to visit it because it is trouble?
@ Political Nightwatchman
Scott Buchholz was a Morrison man.
He was whip under both Abbott and Turnbull but wasn’t a member of either of those factions.
Close to Stuart Robert, Alex Hawke and the Centre Left crew.
Makes sense he would gravitate towards Ley, and was probably tepid to a Taylor leadership.
King OMalley says:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 10:21 pm
The Howard Effect Hypothesis Test
中华人民共和国
King you sir are a scholar and a gentleman. Very well put together and argued. Profound even.
“The King hereby declares The John Howard Effect real and significant for the 2025 election*.” The “money shot”!
Thank you cobber for doing that and being a hell of a lot smarter than me!
Personally I hope to see Mr Howard on the campaign trail again next time we go round.
Why not give O’Brien the shadow treasury?
He’s a Morrison look alike and wasn’t Morrison such a success in that role in opposition?
https://imgur.com/a/BoM16ir
Oh my word King. That is art.
Here’s an interesting thing Prohibitionist there is no mention of a PM or LotO in the constitution. Section 64 covers who can be ministers:
64 Ministers of State
The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.
Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.
Ministers to sit in Parliament
After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
So the constitutional restriction of who can be PM is that they must become a member of the house or senator within 3 months of appointment.
However as the House must initiate money bills and the government by convention must have the confidence of the house, the convention is that the PM is the leader of the majority in the lower house.
No Australian PM has been a Senator except John Gorton who quickly took Holt’s seat in the house but there were UK PMs in the Lords until the early 20th century.
Entropysays:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 10:25 pm
King OMalleysays:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 10:21 pm
The Howard Effect Hypothesis Test
==========================================================
Entropy, on balance of probabilities it is the former; we had 129 seats that Howard did not visit that did on average 2.17% better 2PP/TCP than the 8 seats that Howard visited.
Neither the Liberal nor National parties will ever accept the need for Net Zero, the replacement of fossil fuels or climate action more generally. They need to be kept out of office until it’s too late to turn back.
STOP PRESS: HOLD MY BEER (RED WINE)
The King just discovered that in these hypothesis tests he undercounted the JWH sample of seats (one should not mix red wine and statistical analysis). The previous report assumed N=6 for Howard visits. The updated N=8. This then swings the results further in favour of the John Howard Effect.
Updated results
P-value of one-tailed test (JWH can only have a negative effect on LNP swing performance): 0.01612
P-value of two-tailed test (JWH can only have a negative effect on LNP swing performance): 0.03224
Thus, even if you are deluded enough to think that John Winston Howard could have had a positive effect on LNP seat swing performance, then we are 96.78% confident that the John Howard effect was NEGATIVE & SIGNIFICANT!
King OMalleysays:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 10:43 pm
Entropysays:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 10:25 pm
King OMalleysays:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 10:21 pm
The Howard Effect Hypothesis Test
==========================================================
A problem of cause and effect. Is the seat in trouble because Howard visits it or does Howard get sent to visit it because it is trouble?
Entropy, on balance of probabilities it is the former; we had 129 seats that Howard did not visit that did on average 2.17% better 2PP/TCP than the 8 seats that Howard visited.
=========================================================================
Not sure how you can know that?
If Howard gets sent to the seats that are considered most in trouble. He will be preferentially being sent to marginal seats that the Liberals are most worried about losing. So those with the swings going against them the most in the Liberal polling.
He also was being preferentially sent to seats that Dutton was extremely disliked in. They didn’t want Dutton there so they sent Howard instead. Not surprisingly seats that Dutton was most disliked in swung more against Liberals too.
Entropy: If Howard gets sent to the seats that are considered most in trouble. He will be preferentially being sent to marginal seats that the Liberals are most worried about losing.
But that’s the point. They stop being marginal when you send John Howard to them. lol.
Pisays:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 10:55 pm
But that’s the point. They stop being marginal when you send John Howard to them. lol.
=======================================================================
Is Howard really the cause or the symptom?
For instance people seeing GP’s are more likely to be sick than the general population. This doesn’t mean seeing a GP makes them sick though.
All I know is that it’s bad. lol.
“Is the only reason we don’t have PMs and Leaders of the Opposition from the Senate purely convention?
Both houses still have question time”
The Prime Minister really needs to be in the lower house where bills are introduced and fought for, not in the house of review, especially since the Opposition Leader will be there personally to attack the Prime Minister’s agenda daily.
And if the PM is in the Lower House, the Opposition Leader needs to be there to confront them on a daily basis.
So it’s not likely to change outside of the Gorton type of situation.
The Age’s piece on the Bruce campaign is a ripper. To their credit, the Age did a great job covering that campaign even if the reasons they picked Bruce turned out to be as spurious as the reasons they followed Mulgrave at the last state election. They uncovered the shonkiness of the Liberal candidate.
The Libs believing that they could swing 5% just by picking any Afghani as their candidate, regardless of how big a shit he was, says it all about them doesn’t it?
And the constant rose coloured glasses right down to trying to snow the media a week out that Bruce was in play, while actually it was getting safer and safer and safer.
I think the upper/lower house thing is more fundamental; The member is voted to the lower house specifically, not placed there as a member of a party as can happen in the Senate. If a member is no longer available, a new one must be voted in. That’s where the leadership has to come from, especially given it is twice the size. Ideologically i think our system requires that direct connection between voters and members. It might just be a convention, but i think people just get it because of that.
C@tmommasays:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 10:03 pm
Bec Carver,
I can see both sides of the argument about WorkCover-a financially unsustainable program that needs to be modified to make it sustainable versus the rights of Workers to be able to claim compensation for workplace injury, psychological or physical. Can you?
Cat, perhaps it’s time you climbed down off your hobby horse. And rethought your relentless shitposting. Being able to “see” both sides from 1000 miles away through a wine-glass is hardly informed debate.
If you think you’re the only one who can see both sides of any issue you’re not critically reading what I posted. I’ve lived the various Workcover schemes 7 days a week for 20 years, from BOTH sides. Including talking injured workers off bridges at 3am. Somehow, I doubt you can say the same.
All you ever see is the red rag of war. But nothing is emptier than the fake acclaim from those few who only ever agree with you. If all you crave is constant reinforcement, start your own fucking blog.
If you’re claiming workers should be denied their rights when injured at work solely to bail out Labor govts it’s time for you to cross the aisle. The vast majority of those we represent have been screwed already without the likes of you impugning their motives.
Perhaps if these “Labor” governments (and yes, I’m guilty too, I worked for Hawke/Keating) properly taxed the rich, and the corporates there’d be plenty of money for workers’ rights.
Bullshit sprung from the mouths of politicians, Labor or not, is still bullshit, no matter how much people seeking acclaim on the internet try to polish it.
Entropysays:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 10:51 pm
—
In absence of prior probabilities, which we do not have, all we have is the actual results of seats and an assumption that seat swings are normally distributed. If you accept these results and the normal distribution assumption, then you are forced to accept the probabilities of significance from my tests above.
If you want to argue that John Howard was sent to those seats because they were already in trouble (and by virtue of that assumption) were likely to produce an abnormally bad swing result. Then I would argue in return:
1. Where is your evidence that these seats were already going to swing more significantly negative than the non-John Howard seat visit average?
2. If John Howard was indeed a positive influence why didn’t he improve the results of seats he visited relative to the seats he didn’t (clue; because there was a significant difference between the two average that could not be explained by the standard deviation and sample numbers of both)?
In short, yes there is some possibility that those seats that Howard visited were most likely to turn out bad anyway, but the probability that they did so anyway, regardless of Howard’s visits, is very low when you consider the performance of the seats that Howard did not visit.
King OMalley says:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 10:51 pm
STOP PRESS: HOLD MY BEER (RED WINE)
The King just discovered that in these hypothesis tests he undercounted the JWH sample of seats (one should not mix red wine and statistical analysis). The previous report assumed N=6 for Howard visits. The updated N=8. This then swings the results further in favour of the John Howard Effect.
Updated results
P-value of one-tailed test (JWH can only have a negative effect on LNP swing performance): 0.01612
P-value of two-tailed test (JWH can only have a negative effect on LNP swing performance): 0.03224
Thus, even if you are deluded enough to think that John Winston Howard could have had a positive effect on LNP seat swing performance, then we are 96.78% confident that the John Howard effect was NEGATIVE & SIGNIFICANT!
中华人民共和国
I knew it. I could feel it in my waters (and beer)
Just today I realised that Antic has probably lost his SA Senate seat. It actually improved the LNP having that one less member, and that’s saying something.
So if Kapterian surprise loses, and three of Ley’s Senate supporters are gone on 30 June, she effectively has no majority at that point right?
Is Terry Young in Longman considered a Ley supporter? Because if he is and he goes and Kapterian loses after all, Ley will be out of road rather quickly.
@Pi:
“Just today I realised that Antic has probably lost his SA Senate seat. ”
I regret to inform you that Antic is first on the SA Liberal ticket (I know! They really are that dumb) so he and Anne Ruston will keep their seats. David Fawcett was the third seat for the Liberals so he’s the one who goes.
Rossmcg says Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 8:47 pm
The thing I noticed when the numbers were announced, was how small the numbers were. 54 across the HoR and Senate. They’re not going to need a big party room.
Thank you for noting that. It’s another reason for Labor to be very humble and very modest in its attitude to its election win. The election was primarily a verdict of “Meh” about the two main options, and a belief that one option was somewhat less repugnant than the other. It was not an endorsement of Labor’s tepid neoliberalism in any way, shape, or form.
Damn Arky. Sigh…
Nikwit: “Meh”
94 seats? meh? Yikes.
King O
The King just discovered that in these hypothesis tests he undercounted the JWH sample of seats (one should not mix red wine and statistical analysis). The previous report assumed N=6 for Howard visits. The updated N=8. This then swings the results further in favour of the John Howard Effect.
Although I sincerely admire the effort you put in, there are some qualifications you need to acknowledge;
First, as Entropy says, the selection of seats visited may not be random, and it is possible the LNP chose the seats in trouble as targets for JWH.
Second, the t stats (you sometimes say z) are predicated on Normal distributions since you have such small samples. There is no indication from the small samples (n=6 or 8) you have, that the populations from which these samples are drawn would be Normally distributed. Thus t (or z) stats and related conclusions would likely be inappropriate.
Third, given the specified hypothesis of “Howard can only have a negative effect on the LNP average swing”, you only need a one-tail test.
Fourth, (a little technical), given it is a test of the equivalence of two population means, you also need to specify, given the small samples, if you assume the population variances are equal or not. This can change the cut-off values and the p-values.
Fifth, ok you can tell me to bugger off 🙂
Given the likely lack of Normality you would be better off using some non-parametric test.
Cheers
”
Been Theresays:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 10:25 pm
Hey Ven if you’re still around.
Are you going to get the knees replaced?
”
Been there
Not now. Maybe some time in future. Cartilage in both my knees has worn off on the knees Inner side.
Did you get disability parking sticker for car driving?
Nicholassays:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 11:32 pm
AEC is showing a turnout of 86.6%. This is unlikely to increase much in the final count. This is the lowest since compulsory voting was introduced in 1922 and significantly less than the previous lowest 89% in 2022. Until then the long term average was in the low 90s
Thank you for noting that. It’s another reason for Labor to be very humble and very modest in its attitude to its election win. The election was primarily a verdict of “Meh” about the two main options, and a belief that one option was somewhat less repugnant than the other. It was not an endorsement of Labor’s tepid neoliberalism in any way, shape, or form.
======================================================================
It’s a crap observation as it is untrue. Anyone on the other thread knows most seats have more than 5% to count still. Even the ones with counts most progressed have nearly 5% still to count. The final count will be somewhere between 92-94% I suspect.
Ven
I haven’t applied but from what I see we are both able to get one.
However, I have strategic parking plan ie known as driving around until I find someone leaving a spot close to where I need to park.
I’ll leave the disability spots to those more deserving than those with sore knees.
Nicholassays:
Thank you for noting that. It’s another reason for Labor to be very humble and very modest in its attitude to its election win. The election was primarily a verdict of “Meh” about the two main options, and a belief that one option was somewhat less repugnant than the other. It was not an endorsement of Labor’s tepid neoliberalism in any way, shape, or form.
_________________________________
Actually I think it is. They have been rewarded for 3 years of tepid stable government which has done a few good things while also being frightened of its own shadow at times. And no leadership rumblings. People are sick of that.
This is crazy : https://thedriven.io/2025/05/13/byd-seagull-first-drive-a-value-packed-a16000-ev-that-australia-desperately-needs/
A $16K car (in China aud conversion) that has a 39kWh battery. It would cost you more than double that, at least, to install a stationary battery of the same capacity in Oz. I’m a bit of a technology optimist, but I have been nowhere close to predictions about pricing in this market. The transition just keeps getting faster. If anyone would have suggested this five years ago they would have been laughed at.
Douglas and Milkosays:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 10:51 am
Ven,
Here is how to apply: https://www.nsw.gov.au/driving-boating-and-transport/driver-and-rider-licences/health-conditions-and-disability/mobility-parking-permits/eligibility
And here is the form to take to your doctor: https://tfnswforms.transport.nsw.gov.au/45061469-mps-conditions-eng.pdf
=========================================================
For the mobility challenged, basic rule of thumb is if you can walk 100 metres unassisted you are not eligible.
If you can’t walk 100 metres or genuinely require crutches, walking frame or wheelchair you are good to go.
I know there are a lot out there with permits who don’t really meet these criteria, but they need a GP prepared to falsify their claim; apparently a lot do.
imaXXXXXandivotesays:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 11:49 pm
—
Firstly, the updated results show that I am not relying on a one-tailed T-test. The two-tailed T-test also passes the significance test with the updated sample.
Secondly, yes, it could be that the distribution of seat swings are non-parametric (something other than normal), but until someone proves to me otherwise, I think it’s reasonable to assume normal distribution, given all the multitude of variables that would contribute to seat swing results.
Sideline: it would be an interesting to test the distribution of seat swings over a number of elections.
Thirdly, regarding the issue of seats already in trouble, that is pure speculation on Entropy’s part. I could also argue that Howard visited those seats as a strategy to win those seats because the LNP thought they could win them and they thought rolling out John Howard was a winning strategy (question: why would they do that if they thought that wasn’t the case?). Neither of us have evidence to support these possibilities.
So what are we left with? That the seats John Howard visited performed significantly worse than the seats he didn’t and the extent of swing variation in both samples could not explain the differences between the two averages.
Fourthly, regarding equivalence of variance, I assumed they were equal. Happy to be enlightened but I cannot think why they wouldn’t be. But let’s assume they weren’t. If I run the test with unequal variances I get the following P-values:
One-tailed: 0.072
Two-tailed: 0.0144
Granted, doesn’t meet 0.05 but they are still pretty strong results.
Further, as I suspect you already know, there is no hard and fast rules on what should be the significance level for hypothesis tests. If you have good evidence there are factors you are testing that are likely to play a role in the outcomes you are predicting (like high-profile political figures visiting electorates that generate large-scale publicity) then you may have a case for lowering the significance threshold.
Nicholas says
The election was partly a flight to safety (the Trump effect), partly a referendum on the thoroughly incompetent Reactionaries; partly an endorsement of Labor’s policy promises; and partly a response to the increase in real wages during Labor’s term.
These factors have just about entirely destroyed the Liberal Party’s PV. One of the consequences of the flight of voters from the Reactionaries to Labor was the surrender of formerly Green-held seats. If voters had preferred the Greens’ pop-left platform to Labor’s promises they could have voted for it. They didn’t.
The Greens are going to try to obstruct Labor by using their Senate numbers. This is plain as day. They do not accept the will of the people, so emphatically expressed in the election. The Greens are bent on perverting the results of the election. In this they will be the collaborators of their natural allies, the Reactionaries.
The ghost of Reg Withers is co-chairing meetings in the Green Party-room.
Will the Greens join with the Reactionary cliques to try to block Supply?
I came across a new term “Vatnik”. Could be handy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatnik
New thread.
Hi Ven if you pick this up.
I did post yesterday cobber – but I’m currently blocked and my VPN goes on and off and it didn’t post.
Re your arthritis matey – there are much smarter people here who have given sage advice. My old Nana had terrible arthritis. She used Goanna Oil and it seemed to help relieve some of the symptoms. I don’t they use real Goanna Livers anymore for the oil but it certainly helped my Nana.
Good luck cobber – wish there was more I could offer.
@Prohobitionist:
“Is the only reason we don’t have PMs and Leaders of the Opposition from the Senate purely convention? Both houses still have question time.”
In a word: Yes. It’s a legacy of the Westminster system of Parliamentary government.
As of 1905, convention required that the PM be able to command a majority of the House of Commons (prior to that point, PMs were from the House of Lords and governed on the basis of a majority in the Lords).