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.
“ Yeah, yeah. But can he turn water into XXXX?”
_______
Probably not; but water into a craft beer brewed in his own electorate? You bet!
From Late count thread
”
ShowsOnsays:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 8:01 pm
Labor looks in trouble in Watson.
”
Just posting.
Ven
I am sorry to hear about your arthritis. All I can do is to wish you well as you strive to manage it.
Boerwar they are a bunch of absolutely delusional Don Quixotes saddled up on their donkeys ready to charge backwards into battle against literal windmills. Unbelievable.
Burke has 47.9% of primaries in Watson. I don’t see how he can be in trouble starting from there
Re Watson – it’s an obvious glitch in the system.
”
TPOFsays:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 8:14 pm
Nicholas and Pegasus are providing a lot of humour tonight. Especially Nicholas. If it wasn’t Nicholas I would absolutely think his post was something from the Betoota Advocate.
”
How do you post is not from”The Betoota Advocate”? 🙂
Jokes aside, Nicholas is the scromo of left or is it PP of left?
Nicholas is the proof that ‘Left’ cannot claim moral high ground all the time.
‘Omar Comin’ says:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 8:23 pm
Boerwar they are a bunch of absolutely delusional Don Quixotes saddled up on their donkeys ready to charge backwards into battle against literal windmills. Unbelievable.’
—————————-
Don Quixote rode a horse. Rocinante. Sancho rode a donkey. Dapple.
But I get your point.
C@tmommasays:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 7:27 pm
Does anyone think that Jacinta Price would be up to the hard slog of winning a Lower House seat? She’s received a rails run into politics thus far and it would probably be a shock to her sense of entitlement to have to win a seat via blood, sweat and tears. Trust me, it’s no easy task.
_____________________
I got howled down when I suggested exactly the same thing about Wong years ago.
Even our Moderater had a crack.
Taylormade
Is there no justice in the world?
Angus throwing his toys out of the cot. Surely, he doesn’t expect to serve as shadow treasurer again straight after a loss.
“It is likely Mr O’Brien, who as deputy gets to pick a portfolio, will put his hand up to be treasury spokesman.
In that event, Mr Taylor is expected to move to the backbench rather than serve in another cabinet role.”
https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/liberal-mps-warning-as-sussan-ley-takes-party-leadership/news-story/4a8469b6020eae1b7d5b09b99730789f
This is going to be so entertaining watching the LNP and Nats tear each other apart…….
All fighting over the crumbs that are on offer…..
Popcorn futures are rising ………
PN
Looking at Wiki, Ted probably has a superior claim to shadow treasurer. And then you have got to think about Taylor’s contribution to Dutton’s Downfall.
Well done Angus Can’t challenge from within a cabinet roll so he takes a roll now then later moves to the back bench …….or straight to the back bench to begin the white anting…..along with Jacinta ooohhhh the machinations….of it all
Anybody who has watched Ley’s theatrics in attempting to deliver the killer blow in QT in the last three years will know there’s not a lot of depth there.
She usually started interjecting when the Minister being questioned was barely 20 seconds into an answer.
Speaker Dick cut her a lot of slack at times.
So very close to half the party room don’t want her.
And the numbers could well change when the new senators check in
Angus will be plotting already.
Mrmoney @ #1713 Tuesday, May 13th, 2025 – 8:46 pm
That’s why they wanted a woman as leader now. She can be blamed at the next election loss (assuming it goes that way), paving the way for a man to take over and restore the natural order.
Honestly, why would any woman with leadership ambitions gravitate towards the Liberal party?
UK Voting Intention Via @YouGov, 11-12 May:
RFM: 28% (-1)
LAB: 23% (+1)
CON: 18% (+1)
LDM: 16% (=)
GRN: 9% (-1)
SNP: 3% (=)
Mavis at 8.08 pm
Ley will undoubtedly do much better as leader than Gusgate Taylor would have done. Even though she won only narrowly, Taylor was the favourite.
Taylor may have lost a few votes by going full tilt crazy with Senator Price as deputy. He was more responsible than Ley for the policy gap, so it is hard to see Taylor ever being leader, because his judgement is so dubious.
There were sensible observations on 7.30 from Prof Judith Brett, who is the main independent authority on the Liberals, and also by the way on the gap between the city and the country.
Brett said the Liberals lost because they did not have any policies. Not formally true, as O’Brien’s nuclear nonsense was ostensibly a policy, but in fact, as Canavan said, it was more of a fudge than a policy, so Brett is correct in that simple, telling remark.
The dimension that 7.30 missed is the rural- urban divide. Prof Brett wrote a Quarterly Essay about it some years ago. Libs did not get close in one of Dutton’s outer urban target seats, not including Bullwinkel as distinctive.
This is the first time in 42 years, since Fraser, that Lib leader isn’t city based.
People will write Ley off as temporary but, because the expectations are so low, she may do better than expected. Of course her main enemies are within.
As with everything, Angus will be a dilletante plotter and schemer. Susssan has nothing to worry about.
Maybe for suuussssan it might be her last hurrah she’s 60+ years old next election she’ll be 66 I think …..time to move on with knowledge that she was the 1st LNP female leader…..and gave it my all…..only to be shot down by the males
Oakeshott Countrysays:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 7:12 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
==========================================================================
Talk about going off premature. Anyone who goes on the seat counting thread will know even the most advanced seat counts like in Longman. Still have 6000 or so votes to count. The ones not in doubt probably have 10000 plus votes to count. I expect at least 5% to be added to the total count and probably more like 7% to 8%. I’m expecting the final tally will be between 92% and 94%.
”
Boerwarsays:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 8:22 pm
Ven
I am sorry to hear about your arthritis. All I can do is to wish you well as you strive to manage it.
”
Thanks BW for your wishes.
OK. This is the final call on the Howard Effect hypothesis test. So far we have John Winston Howard visiting the following seats during the campaign:
Bennelong
Curtin
Mackellar
Paterson
Perth
Tangney
Please let me know if you think he visited any other seats during the campaign.
Dr D
People will write Ley off as temporary but, because the expectations are so low, she may do better than expected. Of course her main enemies are within.
__________________________________________________
In politics one should never write off anybody and anything. Events and all that.
I suspect that Albanese knows that, even if some of his colleagues may not.
“Taylor may have lost a few votes by going full tilt crazy with Senator Price as deputy.”
@Dr Doolittle
I really think Angus wasn’t going to get numbers so he took the desperate step of recruiting Jacinta Price. It was his hail mary and it didn’t come off.
Taylor calling for more women in the party was never going to hold up running against a woman. It look opportunistic and disingenuous.
How many of these to close to call Lnp members voted today that might not be there by next week..
There could be challenge by as early as next week….
So there was possibly 3-4 mps and 3 senators as well that might not be there in a months time ….
newy boysays:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 6:24 pm
Alpha Zero, Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 10:19 am:
Who reckons Angus would have won without Jacinta on the ticket?
Me. Plus, they were stupid for importing this ersatz American POTUS/VPOTUS crap into a vote that doesn’t allow the election of a ‘ticket’.
____________________________
I am now wondering if Angus was in fact playing to lose, so as not to get the Poisoned Chalice.
JWH definitely visited Robertson and did a meet and greet with Lucy Wicks.
Knew then it was GAME OVER
Howard was in Wentworth on 26th April.
Antony Green on The Cheap Seats
Bob Lynch says:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 9:14 pm
JWH definitely visited Robertson and did a meet and greet with Lucy Wicks.
Knew then it was GAME OVER
Luigi Smith says:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 9:14 pm
Howard was in Wentworth on 26th April.
中华人民共和国
Thanks troops for the Intel. Will be very interesting to see what King O puts out.
“Who reckons Angus would have won without Jacinta on the ticket?
Me. Plus, they were stupid for importing this ersatz American POTUS/VPOTUS crap into a vote that doesn’t allow the election of a ‘ticket’.
____________________________
I am now wondering if Angus was in fact playing to lose, so as not to get the Poisoned Chalice.”
@Alpha Zero
Both these points are wrong. Angus Taylor wouldn’t have gone all the trouble to get Jacinta which it’s now caused a strain on the relationship with the Nationals if he had the numbers.
Angus also took the back door today instead of facing the media. It was quite obvious he was pissed about the result.
Jacinta Price was Angus Taylor’s Sarah Palin
Melbourne Institute does not give the Liberal party most hope:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woXgovtKVco
Diogenes @ #1690 Tuesday, May 13th, 2025 – 8:02 pm
This is the nub of the problem:
The government says the state’s workers’ compensation scheme is unsustainable, and that a surge in psychological claims – which have doubled in six years – is to blame.
It says its proposed changes put “prevention ahead of compensation”, and will help put downward pressure on insurer premiums. The nominal insurer, icare, has warned premiums will increase by 36 per cent over three years from 2026.
The proposed overhaul has won support from the state’s business lobby. Business NSW chief Daniel Hunter said workers’ compensation is “out of control” and claimed workers were abusing the scheme by lodging claims over “low-level workplace disputes and underperformance”.
NSW Treasurer, Daniel Mookhey, and the Premier have made no firm decisions yet, so it’s disingenuous to imply that they have.
A spokesman for Treasurer Daniel Mookhey said consultation “remains ongoing” and the government “welcomes all feedback and is keeping all options on the table”.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/inside-the-fight-over-who-is-gaming-the-nsw-workers-comp-scheme-20250507-p5lxa6.html
Boerwar @ #1712 Tuesday, May 13th, 2025 – 8:44 pm
Looking at Ted O’Brien’s qualifications, he probably has a stronger claim to be Liberal Leader than anyone else.
It looks like it’s on like Donkey Kong already in the Liberal Party:
Ley’s deputy Ted O’Brien has told colleagues he wants to be the shadow treasurer, but decisions on the opposition frontbench are likely weeks away.
A cloud will hang over the party’s unity, as her opponents demand she pick her frontbench on merit rather than factional allegiance. This masthead reported last week that Ley was offering MPs, including her key ally Alex Hawke, as well as Jason Wood, Andrew Wallace and Scott Buchholz, promotions to win their votes.
Taylor’s camp was infuriated by the reports. Key supporters of the former shadow treasurer – whom Ley said would be offered a senior job – said the Right faction may move to undermine Ley if she only rewarded her backers.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/sussan-ley-becomes-first-woman-to-lead-the-federal-liberal-party-20250513-p5lyo5.html
Dr Doolittle:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 8:53 pm
I think you’re right, which could be reflected in the next Newspoll. Damn it, the sheilas are taking over. If you read Jung et al, I’m not sure women want to take charge, but will if required, like last Saturday. I’m off.
frednksays:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 9:27 pm
Melbourne Institute does not give the Liberal party most hope:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woXgovtKVco
____________________
Umm, that is the “Australia” Institute, a non-credible, partisan (pro-greens/teals) outfit using some very dodgy economics to justify their “same-same” “minority now!” narrative over the past 12 months.
The “Melbourne” Institute is a real economics school at the University of Melbourne.
Any “commentary” from the Australia Institute is less useful or insightful than a random PB poster.
Political Nightwatchman at 9.21 pm
Taylor was probably more upset by his loss today than by the Lib defeat. He knew the latter was coming a mile off. Hence the reports of positioning himself for leader of the vanquished.
He would not have expected to lose today. After all, even the AFR editor Stuchbury had anointed him last night. He would, most probably, have lost on the votes of the NSW Libs. After all, they know his failings best.
@ Cat – It’ll be interesting to see the internecine machinations of the National Right.
I don’t think Hastie and Patterson are going to be throwing spears for Taylor, especially considering their own aspirations. It’s probably in their interest that Ley is successful (somewhat) until the time is right to challenge.
What hasn’t been discussed much is Dutton had personally intervened in many NSW preselections, which sidelined Alex Hawke’s power. There will be a resurgence of Centre Right and Moderate candidates by next election.
Boerwar says
Boerwar thanks for that correction, I could not remember that detail from looking at a picture of the cover of the book on the internet some years ago.
What you get with Susssan is what you sssseee!
C@tmommasays:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 7:05 pm
“I don’t suppose you, Diogenes, nath, Taylormade, or any of the other Anti Labor Party snarks have bothered to investigate the issue with any depth to get an understanding as to why the things you are railing against are going on? It’s called, Problem: Rorting of the system. Answer: Putting the program on a sustainable financial path and which isn’t so easy to game.”
You don’t know what you’re talking about. How does someone like you assess “rorting” when it comes to injured workers? Do you even understand the various Workcover processes?
More importantly why is the line being redrawn at 30%?
For e.g., psych injuries. (With or without physical impairment.)
The difference between, say, a 29% and 30% Psych impairment assessment is not one percent, in fact, or in outcome. Hence why Govt’s are guillotining injured workers below this “magic” 30% rating.
One, 29% (or less) is the default assessment of dozens of preferred (read doctor-shopped) Psych’s who (for a significant fee) “assess” injured workers in a way that:
• stops them from getting a permanent impairment certificate,
• removes the permanent impairment compensation that kicks in at 30% ($100k+),
• removes their right to sue Workcover agents and/or employers etc under common law,
• and can even slow their access to their super under early retirement schemes, to say nothing of the reduced benefits, medical cost recovery and rehab etc.
Whereas 30%, gets an injured worker all these things. And often means Workcover agents and their insurers stop harassing “at risk” injured workers, sometimes relentlessly over the life of their injury.
Naturally Workcover agents, their associated for-profit insurers, employers, AND NOW GOVERNMENTS, have made the 30% hurdle all but impossible to achieve. Unless you’ve convinced a BIG law firm to take you on. Or are all but dead.
And even then, you still need to convince a fully convened medical panel to “pass”.
Unless you’ve been through the process (or are employed by the likes of Maurice Blackburn etc, or the state Ombudsman’s offices’) you can’t know just how big the difference is between 29% and 30% when it comes to injury outcomes and compensation.
And who can say one injured worker is one, but the other nine are not? Why do so many get assessed at exactly 29%?
Finally, how can you claim to know there is “rorting” or “gaming” of schemes by workers who are regularly blocked by systemic scam “assessments” that you clearly don’t understand.
Because Labor said so?
Or don’t you care?
Blind parochialism cuts both ways.
@ Alpha Zero – I heard Lib HQ is focus-testing another Tina Turner classic: “We don’t need another Net Zero”
Prohibitionist @ #1740 Tuesday, May 13th, 2025 – 9:44 pm
Dutton chose some Moderates to contest seats in NSW if he thought they had a reasonable chance of winning, such as in my own seat of Robertson. Ley may have had something to do with it but he let it go through.
What you say about Hastie is interesting, Patterson, not so much as he is a Senator. However, as Tony Barry has now famously observed, wtte, ‘The Liberal Party is a broad church. Not a church.’ So I think that will always count against Andrew Hastie, unless he can convince people in the Liberal Party and the electorate more particularly, that he won’t bring his Beliefs front and centre should he be leader. I’m not particularly confident about that possibility.
As someone who carried a lot of the nuclear water for Peter Dutton, Ted O’Brien appears to have undergone a transformation since then and in a short space of time to someone not so ideologically predisposed, which is lining him up to be able to challenge for the leadership down the road and be more broadly appealing to both factions, should Sussan Ley fail. I think.
Tell you one thing, Sussan Ley gives new meaning to politicians ‘working the numbers’
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?
The Howard Effect Hypothesis Test
Null hypothesis: That John Howard had no negative effect on swing performance on seats he visited during the 2025 election campaign.
Seats that John Howard visited during the election campaign and their LNP swings.
Seat | Swing
Bennelong | -9.20%
Curtin | -1.62%
Mackellar | -3.73%
Paterson | -3.65%
Perth | -2.47%
Robertson | -6.99%
Tangney | -4.10%
Wentworth | -8.39%
Average LNP Swing (Howard-Visited-Seat): -5.02%
Standard Deviation (Howard-Visited-Seat): 2.63%
For all other seats*
Average LNP Swing (All-Other-Seats): -2.85%
Standard Deviation (All-Other-Seats): 4.58%
* Where LNP finished in the first two positions of the primary vote.
Significance level: 0.05
One-tailed test: John Howard could only have a negative effect on seat swing performance.
Two-tailed test: John Howard could either have a positive or negative effect on seat swing performance.
Hypothesis test results
T-test (Comparing Two Independent Averages)
Z=(x1-x2)/sqrt((SD1^2/N1)+(SD2^2/N2))
Z=-1.892
P-value (one-tailed) = 0.0292
P-value (two-tailed) = 0.0584
Analysis
One-tailed test
————
If it is accepted that John Howard could only have a negative effect on seat swing performance, then at a significance level of 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected.
Under this assumption, we are 97.08% confident that there is something influencing the seat swing performance of seats that Howard visited, compared to seats he didn’t, other than randomness in LNP swing variations of seats in the 2025 election.
We can consider John Howard visiting these seats significant (at a significance level of 0.05).
Two-tailed test
————
If it is accepted that John Howard could have had either a positive or negative effect on seat swing performance, then at a significance level of 0.05, the null hypothesis is (only marginally) accepted.
Under this assumption, we are only 94.12% confident that there is something influencing the seat swing performance of seats that Howard visited, compared to seats he didn’t, other than randomness in LNP swing variations of seats in the 2025 election.
Verdict
Given the major figure John Howard is and the publicity he attracts, plus given the overall result of the election that rejected LNP in near record terms (ie he was unlikely to be a positive effect – unless you are a Sky News host), and the almost significant result of the two-tailed test (missing significance by only 0.88%), The King hereby declares The John Howard Effect real and significant for the 2025 election*.
* Note; for the naysayers, yes, statistical significance does not equal causation. But this is a judgement call The King is making based on the factors listed above. The King asks naysayers, what other factors could explain this abnormal result?
How significant?
At an average difference of 2.17%, John Howard most probably cost the LNP 64,428 votes across the seats he visited during the campaign.
If we accept there was a negative John Howard effect on seat swing performance, then it could be argued that the resultant publicity from his visits also had some extra negative effect on voters who were exposed to this publicity from all those other seats he did not visit.
Addendum: The King declares this verdict final and no correspondence shall be entered into.
“This masthead reported last week that Ley was offering MPs, including her key ally Alex Hawke, as well as Jason Wood, Andrew Wallace and Scott Buchholz, promotions to win their votes.”
The naming of Scott Buchholz is an interesting one in the report. I’m pretty sure he was a numbers man for Tony Abbott during the spill when challenged by Malcolm Turnbull for the Prime Ministership. It doesn’t sound this leadership vote completely broke down lines between the Right and the moderates.