Monday, October 28, 2024

Not-A-Poll Reset 2 of 2024: Miles Defeated

Following Labor's heavy defeat in the Queensland election (and no it wasn't close) it's time to start another round of the sidebar Next Leader To Go Not-A-Poll, which includes the six Premiers, the two Chief Ministers, the PM and the federal Opposition Leader.

Inheriting the job after Annastacia Palaszczuk resigned, Miles served for less than a year, the first Premier to not make it to a year in office since Rob Kerin (SA) in 2002.  This is the longest gap between cases with Premiers with such short tenures in history.  Leading a government that was federally dragged and almost a decade old, and coming to office with mixed personal perceptions, Miles was always at long odds to retain.  He did, however, not die wondering in his attempt to hold on to as many Labor seats as he could, and in my view the result could have easily been worse.

David Crisafulli scores the Coalition's first win from opposition in a state election since SA 2018 and takes over with the potential to be Premier for a long time.  My metaphorical advice to him to secure that longevity would be to install a ten-foot high portrait of Campbell Newman in his office and write across it "JUST DON'T BE THIS GUY".  

Not-A-Poll voters overwhelmingly got this one right.  The totals after deleting votes cast after 6 pm on election night (as I always do when the incumbent loses) were:


The new round is more interesting.  Albanese and Dutton go to an election in the next seven months, though it's possible that they could both survive it in their current roles.  Rockliff won an election earlier this year but his government has had a bumpy ride.  Barr just won another election and might retire sometime in the next 20 years, or lose an election in the next 60.  The rest are four first-termers elected from opposition (none facing elections before 2026) and two replacement Premiers.  Cook faces an election next year but is against a very weakened opposition, while Allan could be at risk in 2026 given the age of the government at that time.  




Sunday, October 27, 2024

Queensland 2024 Postcount

Apparent wins (several not yet confirmed) LNP 52 ALP 33 KAP 3 GRN 1 IND 1

Seats in doubt not in above total, and to be covered on this page:

Mulgrave (LNP vs KAP)
South Brisbane (Green vs ALP)
Mirani (LNP vs KAP)

Estimated final result if current leads/expected favourites hold LNP 52 ALP 34 KAP 5 GRN 1 IND 1

This is my postcount thread for the 2024 Queensland election which has been very decisively won by the LNP, the scale of their victory becoming more apparent late in the night as the prepoll swing was higher than the day booths.   I will be unrolling seats of interest through the day.  With only 66% of enrolment counted on the night it may well be that more seats become more competitive than they looked as counting continues.  I note for instance that Labor's apparent miracle retain in Bundaberg has tightened late at night and is still awaiting a major prepoll.  (Edit: Labor has survived that)

Many of the ABC projections last night were very hard for me to fathom, including the late-night projection of Maiwar as an LNP win.  The ABC has since called the seat a Greens retain.  

The LNP has opened up a large lead in Pumicestone which I was going to cover on this page so I've saved myself the bother for now.  I am also not duplicating William Bowe's coverage of Pine Rivers and Maryborough yet though I may add Pine Rivers at least if it becomes closer.

Updates will be added for each seat, scrolling to the top, until a seat is considered no longer in serious doubt.  Seats no longer being followed will be moved to the bottom of the page.  

Mirani (ONP vs LNP 9.0%, ONP incumbent ran with KAP)
Complex to project but KAP appears better placed

Monday 4:30 pm: The ABC is using the mix and match method from the incomplete official primary count to correct for errors in the unofficial count and on this basis is showing a slight weakening in Andrew's primary (down 31) and improvement for the LNP (up 11).  Andrew's lead in the unofficial 2PP count is 328, with those changes it would be more like 286.

Intro Sunday: Mirani is a coastal seat loosely between Rockhampton and Mackay.  In Mirani, Stephen Andrew was elected for One Nation in 2017 and became a very rare case of a One Nation incumbent to run a full term with the party and be re-elected in 2020.  But in the lead-up to the current election a spat broke out between him and his party, who accused him of being "lazy" and complained that he had not been moving bills in the parliament.  After a short spell as an indie, Stephen Andrew was picked up by KAP.  

This proved rather handy for him in preference-gathering terms because it meant that instead of being a One Nation candidate who Labor had to put last, he was now able to be preferenced by Labor ahead of the LNP - Labor's general fondness for giving away preferences to the Katter Party and also Shooters Fishers and Farmers having long known no rational limits.  

The split in vote between KAP and One Nation in the seat, plus the general swing to the LNP, have endangered Andrew's hold on the seat but haven't destroyed it as obviously as could have been the case.  At present Glen Kelly (LNP) has 35.8%, Andrew (KAP) 27.6%, Susan Teder (ALP) 20.2% and Brett (Beaver) Neal (ON) 10.8% plus 3% for the Greens and 2.7% for Family First.  There is a slightly incomplete 2CP count in which Andrew leads Kelly by 253 votes (50.5-49.5).  This is missing a small booth Mount Morgan from which Andrew may slightly increase his lead (say by 40 votes or so), but I am not so sure about that as while the LNP has done badly in that booth and Labor well, it is a very good one for One Nation.

The count is at 68.8% of enrolment and in 2020 it reached 89.6%.  Absent early voting is huge in Mirani accounting for 23% of enrolment in 2020 (nearly 8000 votes!); it will be less than that this time.  There are probably about 2000 postals to come as well as a few thousand absents and the usual scatter of provisionals and so on.

It's not possible to project off the 2020 2CP breakdowns in this seat because the how-to-vote recommendations of Labor at least are different as concerns the two competing candidates.  It's the postals that are the issue for Andrew so far as the first 2319 cost him 367 of his lead, and while that flow should weaken in the later postals it could still be enough to put him behind or very nearly so.  The LNP hasn't done at all well in the prepolls in this seat counted so far on 2CP (oddly) and so I suspect that absent early votes should be good for Andrew and absent votes also should be.

It's a straight 2CP fight and it's better to have the lead than not to have it so for now I think Andrew could just hang on but this is subject to, for instance, any corrections in the existing count.  I did a preference flow check and did not find any issues.  

Mulgrave (ALP 12.2%, LNP vs KAP)
Apparently strong prospect of KAP winning from third, otherwise LNP wins seat

Mulgrave includes southern Cairns and areas further south and has been held by Labor since they won it in a by-election in 1998, which gave Peter Beattie majority government.  It was won by the Nationals from Labor in 1995, then initially by One Nation in 1998, and has been held by Labor ever since the by-election, firstly by Warren Pitt (also MP 1989-1995) and then by his son Curtis Pitt, who retired at this election.

Labor has lost more than half of its vote with the retirement, a catastrophic 27.4% primary swing (the worst in the state) and is currently behind 52.7-47.3 on 2PP with 54.8% counted.  The bulk of the rest will be absent early voting which in 2020 accounted for 20.2% of enrolment and favoured the LNP over Labor.  Turnout in this seat also tends to be low, reaching only 83.75% in 2020.  Presumably swings on absent early voting will be at least similar to the count so far if not worse for Labor so Labor will lose the 2PP even more heavily than this.  

However instead of the departing votes going to the LNP they have sprayed among a large field and we currently have this mess:

James (LNP) 26.0
Bates (ALP) 23.8
Lesina (KAP) 18.2
Raymond (IND) 7.9
McInnes (ON) 7.4
Daniels (LC) 5.8
Batzke (IND) 4.1
Everett (Grn) 3.6
Searle (FFP) 1.8
Floyd (IND) 1.3

On current numbers, the threat to the LNP's Terry James is Steven Lesina (KAP) who could repeat Nick Dametto's win from third in Hinchinbrook 2017.  Lesina's first challenge is to get into second.  On present numbers he needs to beat Labor's share of preferences from the other candidates by 17.5 points in a three-way split vs Labor and the LNP.  This does not sound difficult and the target may well decrease.  I note that of the independents, Batzke is a controversial anti-abortion ex-UAP candidate and Raymond is a veteran policeman who campaigned on crime issues and was reportedly courted by the LNP and KAP.  All this said reports that the how to vote card preferences favoured KAP were overstated, with many flowing to Labor and LNP ... but few voters for this mess will copy the cards anyway.  

Assuming Lesina does make the final two, he currently needs to beat the LNP 57-43 on the combined preferences of all other parties.  This strikes me as very easy, though the target is likely to increase as further counting favours the LNP.

Most likely we will be waiting for all votes to come in and a distribution of preferences to confirm the winner in this seat but at the moment Lesina seems to be well placed.


South Brisbane (Greens vs ALP 5.4%)
ALP need to stay ahead of LNP at crucial point to win seat - critically close

Live count gap estimate after preferences on Monday evening: ALP 216 ahead of exclusion
Estimate is based at this stage on historic ON flows between LNP/ALP/GRN, will be adjusted if better data permits

--

Monday 9:20:  1619 out of electorate prepolls favoured the LNP 616-433 over Labor and 1249 day absents favoured Labor over the LNP 387-262; there were also some postals added.  An important thing here is that you can't project off a sample of absents to all absents unless you know where they are from; the prepolls may have been from somewhere naturally conservative.  (Edit: my understanding is they're from multiple seats to the south side of South Brisbane where the LNP vote is mostly not that high.)

Monday 3:30 pm: The current Labor to Liberal primary gap in the unofficial count is 2.9% (760 votes) having come down very slightly on what I believe is rechecking. Furthermore, in the rechecked booths the LNP are up 13 votes compared to the official count, Labor down 28, One Nation up 12 and Greens up 48 meaning the lead prior to ON preferences is currently 719.  The main culprit here is the West End booth where it appears 30 Greens votes may have been in the Labor pile.  Overall this improves the Greens' position by about 67 votes compared to Sunday's outlook and significantly improves their chances given the projected closeness of the finish (but they're still behind).  

INTRO SUNDAY:  The Greens' Amy MacMahon won South Brisbane from Labor's Jackie Trad in 2020 with the assistance of LNP how to vote card preferences, though she also had a lead on primary votes.  The LNP reversed that decision for 2024 meaning that all else being equal, the Greens would probably need a slight improvement in their primary vote position vs Labor to hold the seat.  That has not occurred, with a 2% swing against Labor's primary and a larger 4.6% swing against the Greens', with 63.8% of enrolment counted, and the small matter of a 43 point decline in the Greens' preference share means they are definitely toast if it finishes as a two-party contest against Labor.  In 2020 out-of-electorate early votes were 6.5% of enrolment (likely to increase) and day absents were 5.0%, and turnout finished at 88.  Remaining postals could be about 4.5% of enrolment.  

Late in the night, a possible lifeline emerged.  If the LNP vote comes up to the point that the LNP make the final two with the assistance of One Nation preferences, then the Greens still win the seat on Labor preferences.  At present MacMahon is on 35%, Barbara O'Shea (Labor) on 32.4 and Marita Parkinson (LNP) 29.4.  Richard Henderson (One Nation) has 3.2%.  

In South Brisbane in 2020 preferences from the One Nation candidate (not all One Nation votes) split 61.6% LNP, 20.1% Green, 18.2% Labor.  There were similar One Nation exclusions with three candidates left in, for instance, Maiwar 2020 and the federal seats of Griffith and Brisbane in 2022.  In all these cases the LNP gained on Labor at between .43 votes/preference and .50 votes/preference on the exclusion of the One Nation candidate.  If this pattern repeats, the LNP will close on Labor by something like 1.5 points off the One Nation preferences, suggesting they are currently in reality about 1.5% (390 votes) behind. 

If I assume that out of division prepolls will have the same swing as home prepolls, that will give the LNP only a trivial edge on those, probably worth less than 100 votes.  If I assume that absent day votes have the same swing as day votes generally, that would more or less cancel out the out of division prepolls.  This suggests that if the LNP are to close the gap (much as they don't want to) they will probably have to do it on remaining postals.

The postals so far have had a colossal swing to the LNP, such that another 1900 formal postals at the present rate would reduce Labor's lead in the race for second by about 310 votes.  However late postals won't break as strongly as early postals, and declaration votes could boost Labor's lead by several dozen.  So all up I am projecting Labor staying ahead of the LNP but the margin in my estimate is a few hundred votes (a bit under 1%) which could easily be overturned by a change in swing patterns or even a counting correction.  Too close to call yet (and the Greens for some reason have a high win rate in close postcounts in my experience) but for now this seems to be a advantage Labor.  

The Greens have never before lost a single-member state and federal seat that they won at a general election, having successfully defended eight (some of them repeatedly).  That streak is here in serious danger.  

(More seats may be added)


Saturday, October 26, 2024

Queensland 2024 Election Night Live

2020 Election Result ALP 52 LNP 34 KAP 3 Green 2 PHON 1 IND 1
At 2024 Election ALP 51 LNP 35 KAP 4 Green 2 IND 1
Substantial swing to LNP, 2PP likely to exceed 53% and may reach 54%
LNP has won election with a small to moderate majority (probably 50-53 seats won)

Seats expected to change (some not absolutely confirmed):

LNP to ALP: Ipswich West

ALP to LNP:  Aspley, Barron River, Caloundra, Capalaba, Cook, Keppel, Hervey Bay, Mackay, Maryborough, Mundingburra, Nicklin, Redcliffe, Pine Rivers, Rockhampton, Townsville, Thuringowa

ALP to LNP or KAP: Mulgrave

Incumbents struggling:

ALP trailing LNP on projection: Pumicestone

Greens trailing ALP: South Brisbane (but may be saved if ALP falls to third)

Close ALP incumbent seats: Gaven

Close KAP incumhent seat: Mirani

Close Green incumbent seat: Maiwar

Complicated seats:

Mulgrave (possibility of KAP win from third)
South Brisbane (possibility ALP could be knocked out saving Greens)

Friday, October 25, 2024

Queensland Polling Narrows Further In The Final Days

LAST-ELECTION PREFS AGGREGATE: 52.4-47.6 TO LNP 
SEAT PROJECTION OFF STATE POLLS IF THIS 2PP IS ACCURATE: LNP 48 ALP 37 GRN 4 KAP 3 IND 1

(AVERAGE OF FINAL POLLS BY RELEASED 2PP: 53.5-46.5 TO LNP, PROJECTION FOR THAT 2PP IS 51-34-4-3-1).  

As the final polls come out, we seem on for a closer Queensland election than earlier this year looked the case.  For much of the year the Miles Government has had classic hallmarks of a doomed state government - almost ten years in power, federally dragged, beset by crime complaints, and polling terribly.  Even four weeks ago there were signs of some recovery, but nothing that looked like life.  Now in the final week the LNP has recorded a couple of polls based off which it would be only slightly more likely than not to get a majority.  As the pendulum slightly favours Labor, it's even still plausible that if there is a modest polling error, Labor could scrape home.  Equally it's still plausible that the LNP could outdo the polls or get a good seat distribution and get a very solid majority.  But the very heavy drubbing that for so long looked so likely now seems a much more remote prospect.  If the late polls are spot on, Labor will almost certainly still lose, but they won't have trouble with saving the furniture.  Not that they needed the furniture the last time they were voted out.  

This has been accompanied by some remarkable changes in leadership ratings.  In the final Newspoll, Steven Miles has recorded a Better Premier lead, albeit of 3%, which is typically nowhere near enough because preferred leader polling skews to incumbents.  But such as it was, that was his first Better Premier lead ever, and the first for a Labor Premier since April 2023, snapping a run of 17 losses from various pollsters.  Crisafulli has gone from a personal rating of net +12 at the start of this campaign to net -3, his first negative rating of the term that I can find after at least 19 positives.  This sort of recovery by a state government that has started losing heavily in polling is very uncommon.

Thursday, October 24, 2024

The Commonest Arguments For OPV Are Overrated

In the leadup to the Queensland election (which I'll have a roundup post on overnight) there's been some undignified arguing about whether Queensland should use optional or compulsory preferencing, with both major parties accusing each other of seeking to rig or corrupt the system.  Opposition Leader David Crisafulli has repeatedly used misleading language to attack compulsory preferencing, claiming that it forces voters to "vote for" candidates they don't want.  (It actually only forces them to rank them, which lacks the same level of obvious moral repugnance).   

In New South Wales, the debate about optional preferencing is typically a lot more sedate.  Optional preferencing has obvious formality benefits in NSW especially at state elections (though this can flow on to worse informal voting rates at federal).  Perhaps partly because OPV is in the NSW Constitution, and perhaps because any government wanting to do so would have a tough time getting its way in the upper house, there doesn't seem to be any serious push to get rid of it.  It also seems that for whatever reason, non-major-party candidates (who might be thought to be disadvantaged most by OPV since they most often rely on winning from behind) actually do well in NSW state elections, much better than in Victoria.  

However, in Queensland, where there's no upper house and the election winners can write the rules for the next election, the debate is an on and off culture war item between the major parties.   In Queensland, OPV first came in from the 1992 election after it was recommended by the post-Fitzgerald Electoral and Administrative Review Committee, although the arguments considered had very little to do with corruption.  It was repealed for the 2017 election in unusual circumstances.  Katter's Australian Party and the LNP had supported an electoral amendment bill to increase the number of seats from 89 to 93.  The minority Palaszczuk government moved an amendment to add the return of compulsory preferencing, which then passed and the whole package was then passed over the LNP's vehement objections.  

Sunday, October 20, 2024

ACT 2024 Postcount

Numbers in the form Labor-Liberal-Greens-I4C-others.  


BRINDABELLA: Final result 2-2-1-0-0 (Greens defeated Liberals for final seat)

GINNINDERRA: 2-2-1-0-0 (no change)

KURRAJONG: 2-1-1-1-0 (Independents for Canberra gain from Greens)

MURRUMBIDGEE: 2-2-0-0-1 (Fiona Carrick gain from Greens)

YERRABI: 2-2-1-0-0 (no change)

Final total 10-9-4-1-1

WARNING: ACT election analysis is highly technical.  This page is rated Wonk Factor 5/5.

The letter Q, where used without explanation, means the number of quotas.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome to my page that will follow the ACT postcount until all seats are resolved.  This year each seat has its own section with updates scrolling to the top for each seat.   Updates will be added frequently for the close and complex races in Brindabella (three party fight for one seat) and Murrumbidgee (within-party contest between two Liberals).  The other seats will only be updated if anything I consider notable happens.  

Last night Elections ACT were extremely fast at getting two provisional distributions out with the second arriving at 8:21.  I believe this was all the electronic votes available to include on the day and the reason there were no more afterwards is all remaining votes were paper ballots that still need to be scanned over coming days.

Saturday, October 19, 2024

ACT Election 2024: Counting Day Live

Startline from 2020 election: 10 Labor 9 Liberal 6 Greens 

Likely result 10 Labor 9 Liberal 3 Green 1 Ind for Canberra 1 Carrick 1 undecided

In doubt: Labor vs Liberal vs Greens (Brindabella) - Liberal appears likely 

(some others not fully confirmed)

Labor/Greens combined majority (as opposed to shared balance of power) looks extremely likely.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments will appear here scrolling to the top from 6 pm

11:15 End of night wrap: What we have seen in the ACT election is no major change for the major parties, with Labor, Liberals and Greens all down a bit on vote share at the moment with the emergence of Independents for Canberra.  The Greens were extremely lucky to win six seats in 2020 and an unsurprising but small decline in their vote was always a risk of costing them three.  While 10-10-3-1-1 still looks like the most likely scenario there remain some different scenarios in Brindabella where the flow of preferences between the left parties could still see the Greens retain against the odds, or there is a very weird scenario in which Labor gets three, but more likely is that postals snuff all this out with the Liberals winning.  A further distribution is needed here.

The two most likely fourth-party chances, Thomas Emerson and Fiona Carrick, appear to have won convincingly, but there has not been a wave of "independents" as some expected. Still, these are good breakthroughs after decades of only three parties winning.

Not much really changes in the ACT in terms of the majors.  If the Liberals do manage to tie Labor's seat count that will be another tick in the box for federal drag, but nothing like the tick seen in the Northern Territory.  I am not sure the question "how can the Canberra Liberals win?" really has an answer yet, until Labor really screw things up the place is simply too left-wing,  

NSW By-Elections 2024 Live

Pittwater (Lib vs IND 0.7%), Epping (Lib 4.8%), Hornsby (Lib 8.0%) - ALP not contesting any seats

Pittwater expected IND gain, Epping and Hornsby LIB retain.  

-------------------------
Updates will appear here from 6 pm, scrolling to the top.

8:08 Very distracted by ACT but a very large prepoll has come in and there is nothing dangerous there for Scruby.  Scruby's lead is too large.  

7:37 The pattern in the booth voting is quite set in Pittwater and something very radical has to happen in prepolls or it's all over and Scruby has won.  

7:11 Several more booths as well as postals in in Pittwater and things are not getting any better now for the Liberals after that aberrant third booth.  

6:57 Uneven swing between booths in Pittwater, the third one in actually swung to Ryburn on projected 2CP.   

6:51 Whopping swings to Scruby in Pittwater in the early booths, coming out at around 10% 2CP!  If this continues it will be over pretty fast.  Nothing scary for Liberals to see in the other seats, the Greens a distant second in both of them.  

6 pm: This thing is on, there's even a results page.  No action expected for at least half an hour.  

Tuesday, October 1, 2024

Queensland 2024: The Polls Aren't Getting Much Better For Labor

Recent polling LNP leads approx 55.5-44.5

Possible seat result of this 2PP LNP 56 ALP 29 Green 4 KAP 3 IND 1 

I last wrote about the Queensland polling leadup back five months ago - was it really that long? - in The Tide Is Going Out For Queensland Labor.  At that time, there had been a few polls out showing Labor trailing about 45-55 two-party preferred, which as I explained in the article is historically not surprising in the slightest.  Five months on and less than one to go til the election, they're still there.  

However it's not as if nothing at all has happened in the meantime.  Since my last article (which mentioned the 44-56 April YouGov and the 46-54 March Newspoll), things may have got worse and then got better for the Government.  There's no need for me to repeat all the details of polls that are recorded and linked to on Wikipedia but there was a string of shockers for the government through to early September.  On 2PP they had only 44.5% (est) in Resolve February to May, 43% (converted estimate) in Redbridge February+May (two waves, not a continuous sample), 43% in YouGov July 8-15, 45.5% in Redbridge May+August, 43% in Wolf + Smith 6-29 Aug (Wolf + Smith is a sort of Resolve spinoff), and 42% (est and possibly generous) in Resolve July through September.  

While the Resolve type polls in this mix have the Labor primary lower than others because of their handling of the independent vote, none of these six polls had the Labor primary with a 3 in front of it, and Redbridge's first sample had the LNP as high as 47.  The average major party primary gap across these polls was 17.5 points.

Sunday, September 29, 2024

ACT Election 2024 Preview

2020 BASELINE: ALP 10 Lib 9 Green 6 (ALP-Green coalition government)

At election ALP 10 Lib 8 Green 6 FF1 (1 Liberal incumbent disendorsed and joined FF)

--

This is my preview page for the 2024 ACT election.  In the absence of any reputable polling whatsoever for the entire term (seriously!) there is not too much of use I can say about outcomes, beyond pointing to some possibilities.  What I can do is look at the nature of the contests based on the 2020 result and the history of ACT elections.  The ACT is of special interest to me because it uses a variant of Hare-Clark, the system also used in Tasmania.  I may get around to writing a special effective voting article but in case I don't here's one I prepared earlier.  Firstly, I've revised my view on something about the theory of ACT elections.

Well Yes There May Be A Bit Of Federal Drag In The ACT

Federal drag is the theory and fact that it is harder for state and territory governments to do well at elections when the same party is also in power federally, especially if the federal government is not that popular.  We saw this effect in spades in the recent NT election when the first of Labor's mainland dominos fell back with a drubbing that reduced Labor to 4 seats out of 25.  One could hardly blame the feds for all of that - though one could also blame them for more than some might like to.  (There was a lot of talk about how the Voice helped Labor hold up in the majority First Nations seat, the corollary of that is that it helped them get smashed everywhere else).  

Previously when I have looked at the federal drag effect in the very left-wing ACT I have not found anything to see - there just isn't a corellation between federal drag and government seat share change.  However, on a careful look at the history of ACT elections there seems to be something - you just need to ignore the swing from 1989 and 1992, and also looking at the balance of seats between the majors shows the effect up more strongly than whether a government gains or loses seat share, because the proportional size of the crossbench fluctuates a lot more than elsewhere.  The reason for ignoring 1989-1992 is that the 1989 ACT election saw a massive and largely once-off protest vote against self-government with the major parties managing only 37.7% of the vote between them.  Labor increased from 5 of 17 seats to 8 of 17 in 1992 in the face of federal drag, but this was mostly really about a protest vote in the 1989 election disappearing.  

Wednesday, September 11, 2024

Why I've Quit Doing Paid Election Coverage For The Mercury

Between 2013 and 2024 I covered four state and four federal elections via live blogging for The Mercury on contract on election night, as well as writing several commissioned articles in the leadup to various elections.  I enjoyed providing this coverage and working with The Mercury's reporters and staff on election nights tremendously.  I think The Mercury in general serves the population of Hobart well, as a rare example of a Murdoch tabloid that is not particularly slanted, and that the paper provides a lot of good coverage of local political matters.  I have high regard for several journalists who work there.  In general my relationship with The Mercury in this time has been excellent, albeit slightly strained at some state election times by some polling coverage issues (lack of transparency and detail around secretive local industry polls and passing off reader surveys as polls, for example).  One doesn't expect to have everything.  

However I have decided to end this association because the Mercury's online subscription system, and customer relations in the event of failure of that system, are so dreadful that I will not work for a company that continues to rip off its customers in this way.   I will think about options for future Tasmanian state and federal election night coverage, but probably not now, as I am very busy for the next few weeks.  It's sad to have had to move on from work I and many readers enjoyed in such disappointing circumstances, but it's time to do something else with my Tasmanian and federal election nights, whatever that may be.  

Tuesday, September 10, 2024

Crying Wolf: More Embarrassingly Bad Tabloid Poll Reporting

 "Anthony Albanese could be on track to being a one-term Prime Minister, with a new poll showing Labor's primary vote crashing in three major states.  The federal government is in serious trouble in the eastern states - where most of the seats are - with Labor down to 24 per cent in Queensland, 28 in Victoria and 32 in NSW."

"Labor’s primary vote has crashed to just 24 per cent in Queensland, 28 per cent in Victoria and 32 per cent in New South Wales, the wolf + smith shows.  But Labor is dominant in South Australia, where its primary vote is 41 per cent, and 60 per cent on a two-party-preferred basis.  The poll – which measured both state and federal voting intention – suggests the government is in dire trouble in the eastern states, with just 43 per cent of the two-party-preferred vote in Queensland and 48 per cent in Victoria."

This is how the Daily Mail and the Murdoch tabloids (Courier Mail/Daily Telegraph etc) respectively wrote up a massive new poll by an initially mysterious outlet wolf + smith.  But this was in fact another example of laughably incompetent poll reporting from these outlets, one that again happened to be in service of the narrative their right-wing readers would want to see.  What the poll in fact found is very different.  The state-level figures these outlets were commenting were state voting intention not federal.  This was made so abundantly clear in the poll report that, among other subtle hints, the whole of page 10 of the poll report is devoted to making it clear that the rest of the report is state not federal.

Monday, September 2, 2024

Poll Roundup: 50.5 Is The New 51

2PP Aggregate 50.6 to ALP (-0.1 since end of last week)
Aggregate has changed little since loss of about half a point in mid-July
Election "held now" would probably produce minority Labor government

I haven't done a federal poll roundup for a while and today is a randomly opportune time to do one following the second straight 50-50 Newspoll and mention some general themes in recent 2PP polling.  In the last week we have had:

* Newspoll at 50-50 (ALP 32 L-NP 38 Green 12 ON 7 others 11)

* Redbridge at 50.5-49.5 to ALP (ALP 32 L-NP 38 and the rest not published yet, but I'm expecting Greens either 10 or 11)

* YouGov at 50-50 (ALP 32 L-NP 37 Green 13 ON 8 others 10) (Note: normally the 2PP for these primaries would be 51-49 to Labor, though it is possible to get 50 from these primaries sometimes because of rounding and perhaps also the makeup of others.).  

* Essential at 48-46 to ALP, equivalent to 51.1-48.9 (raw primaries ALP 29 Coalition 33 Greens 13 ON 7 UAP 1 others 11 undecided 6 - meaning the major party primaries are effectively more like 31-35)

* Morgan at 50.5-49.5 to Coalition by respondent preferences (50-50 last election) (ALP 29.5 L-NP 39.5 Green 13 ON 4 IND 9 others 5 - Morgan has a standalone IND option on the ballot everywhere, which is likely to be overstated)

Saturday, August 31, 2024

Supporting First Past The Post For Australia Is Pointless

Lately I've been seeing a lot of social media griping about the current government and/or the Greens and teals, mostly from alternative right-wing accounts, in which the writer attacks the Government and says it was only elected because of preferential voting, and we should get rid of preferences by switching to first past the post.   I don't think there is much significant advocacy for first-past-the-post in Australia though Brisbane Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner has unfortunately supported it (what, optional preferences is not enough for him?), as has Resolve pollster Jim Reed in 2022, and a steady flow of petitions to the Commonwealth Parliament generally with tiny signature numbers.  

The following alone is sufficient reason to dismiss all such calls: First past the post is a discriminatory system that violates the Australian value of a fair go.  Under first past the post, a voter whose most preferred party or candidate is unpopular must make a strategic decision between voting for someone who is not in fact their first preference and effectively throwing away their vote.  However a voter who is pretty sure their most preferred candidate will finish first or second does not have to face that strategic dilemma.  On this basis, having first past the post, in a country able to afford and count a fairer system, is not treating all electors fairly.   I do not think there is actually any valid excuse for keeping single-member first past the post anywhere (though the transition out of it needs to be carefully managed in those places that do have it) but this article is confined to the argument re Australia.  

Australia has a proud tradition of fair voting that started over 100 years ago when preferences were introduced to stop conservative parties from losing conservative electorates when voters were split between two different conservative candidates.  The famous case is the 1918 Swan by-election, but in fact the Hughes Government was working to introduced preferential voting months before it occurred but the legislation had not yet passed the parliament.   When I see supposed patriots with Australian flags in their social media profiles propose that we junk this fine tradition and replace it with unfair and primitive crud voting systems used overseas, I can only shake my head at their claims that they really love this country.   I am not going to let these people get away with it; to paraphrase a slightly different Doctor, this voting system is defended.  

Similar to my polling disinformation register, I've written this article mainly as a labor-saving device so that I don't have to keep making the same long replies on the same points but can simply say "see point 3 here" with a link.  I hope others find it interesting and useful, and more points may be added.

I should note that this article also applies to many criticisms of compulsory preferences made by supporters of optional preferencing - especially part 7.

Tuesday, August 27, 2024

EMRS: Surprise Boost For Rockliff In Pre-Lamblowup Poll

EMRS Lib 36 (+1) ALP 27 (-1) Greens 14 (-1) JLN 8 (+1) IND 12 (=) others 3 (=)
IND likely overstated, others likely understated
No significant difference from previous poll or election
Significant lead increase for Rockliff as Preferred Premier

A quick post about a poll I don't at this stage have a lot to say about.  The August quarterly EMRS poll is out, but it's showing its age as its in-field period (14-21 Aug) ended a few days before the dramatic events of the weekend, with two of the three Jacqui Lambie Network MPs kicked out of the party before they could leave, and Michael Ferguson resigning as Infrastructure Minister.   We may never know if even these events had had any impact on the government's standing with voters, as by the time the next poll rolls around, any impact may have washed out.

Labor would have us believe that the hung parliament is killing investor confidence, which would presumably flow through to voting intention somewhere, but this poll is indistinguishable statistically from the previous one and also from the March election.  If EMRS is correct, between the election and August nothing lasting happened at all.  An election held in mid-August would, based on this poll, have returned more of the same.  When the survey dashboard goes live I will check for anything notable in the seat-by-seat patterns but on such statewide numbers the Liberals would always be the largest party and would not be near majority.  

The surprise in this poll is that Jeremy Rockliff has jumped to a 45-30 lead as Preferred Premier over Dean Winter, up from 40-32 last time.  Better leader scores skew to incumbents and tend to disadvantage new leaders so to be only eight points behind in the first one was a solid debut for Winter, but now he is 15 behind, which is the biggest gap since Peter Gutwein led by 19 in March 2022.  (At the time Gutwein's COVID bounce in popularity was deflating following reopening of the state's borders).  Only two of the five points Rockliff has gained here come from Winter, with one from don't know and two from the fact that the previous poll, somehow, only summed to 98 (which I don't think even rounding can explain).  The most obviously controversial thing Winter has done in the last three months is announce support for the UTAS city move, which the Hobart City part of Clark voted three to one against in 2022 and nobody else seems to really care that much about.  The dashboard will be worth a look to see where the blowout in Rockliff's lead has occurred.

Once again though I would find it more useful to see approval scores for the leaders individually; better leader scores are always a mess where you don't know if what's happening is that the voters like the leader who has gained more, that they are displeased with the one who has lost ground, or both or even neither. 

Overall this is yet another poll where Labor doesn't break out of the high 20s/low 30s band it has been stuck in seemingly forever.  It's still in theory an extremely long time until the next election, but every time something happens that prompts the question "is this the thing that get's Labor's support moving towards government?" the answer continues to be "no".  

More comments later once the dashboard goes up. 

Monday, August 26, 2024

Not-A-Poll Reset 1 of 2024: Lawler Defeated

The Northern Territory election is over bar the odd seat in doubt with the CLP winning a crushing victory, the first loss by an incumbent Labor government since they won the 2022 federal election.  Lia Finocchiaro is the new Chief Minister and Eva Lawler has become the third NT Chief Minister to lose her seat (following Goff Letts who managed to still win the election and Adam Giles whose CLP was reduced to two seats - one of them Finocchiaro).  Finocchiaro follows Labor's Clare Martin (2001) as only the second female state or territory leader to win a majority from opposition in one go.  

Lawler was Labor's hospital-pass leader after Natasha Fyles succumbed to repeatedly having no idea what a conflict of interest was.  Historically the fate of third leaders in a term is grim, as was covered off in the poll launch article when Fyles resigned.  Lawler probably deserved better for her efforts to clean up the mess than being dumped from her seat with a 21% swing but Palmerston had had a gutful, as had north-east Darwin, and the NT's history of turbulent electoral swings continued.  Can Finocchiaro put a lasting end to the chaos?  

How did the sidebar Not-A-Poll go at predicting that Lawler would be next to get the boot?  This was one where the historic federal drag based argument that she would lose was pretty strong, but there were more votes overall for Steven Miles, who is up in a couple of months.  There were also more for Jeremy Rockliff, who had to deal with two hostile crossbench defectors then called an election that many people probably thought he was going to lose.  Because this site has a lot of Tasmanian readers, if some portion of the Tasmanian readers think the Tasmanian Premier is doomed then the Tasmanian Premier is likely to dominate the voting.  But Rockliff survived.


Looking at votes cast solely after the March 23 Tasmanian state election, Miles led with 91 votes to 70 for Lawler and just 40 for Rockliff and 15 for Dutton.  However late in this Not-A-Poll run awareness grew that Labor was at high risk of losing in the NT first, and from mid-June onwards Lawler received a plurality of votes, getting 44% of votes cast in August.   Not-A-Poll might have done better had the middle of this year not been a pretty quiet time for the site in terms of events that attract high interest levels.  

(A note that in theory Not-A-Poll should be closed during elections but I often forget.  So votes cast after the polls close for an election where the incumbent loses are deleted.)

Not-A-Poll did not do brilliantly re the NT election result either with a narrow plurality only tipping a CLP majority.

The way ahead

It's only two months before the ACT (on Oct 19) and Queensland (Oct 26) have their elections. The Miles government is generally expected to fall (and probably even more likely to do so off the NT's reassertion that federal drag is a theory and a fact).  There is no polling for the ACT where it is historically very difficult for anyone but Labor to win, so it would be brave for anyone to vote for Andrew Barr to be gone before Queensland, but maybe it could happen.  None of the others appear likely to succumb in the next two months though Rockliff has encountered some instability with two crossbenchers who were supporting him kicked out of their party, and the probably forced resignation of the Infrastructure Minister (who is also the Treasurer) from that portfolio.  

Sunday, August 25, 2024

2024 NT Election Postcount

RESULT CLP 17 ALP 4 IND 3 GRN 1

Fannie Bay: CLP has narrowly defeated Greens with Labor failing to make final two.

Nightcliff Greens have defeated Labor.


This post will follow the post-counting in remaining seats of interest in the NT election, though at the time of writing only one or two seats are really in doubt.  I've started the thread anyway because a couple of the remaining seats are interesting. The general rule in NT elections is that once the margin goes over 100 that's the end of it, but that's all subject to rechecking, and wins from just outside 100 do happen sometimes (eg Barkly 2020).  If any more seats come into play I will include them in the list below.  

I'm confident that Justine Davis (IND) has won Johnston as she leads Labor by 4.4% and will presumably go further ahead on Greens preferences; I cannot see even the famous tendency of INDs to go badly on absents changing that even in a seat where absents were 12.4% of votes last time around; she would have to get almost no absents at all. I have also had info from scrutineers that the flow to her from Greens is strong enough that she will win. 

Lambie Network Blows Up After Only Five Months

In the beginning there was the Deal, and the Deal was stupid.

Nobody seems to know for sure who actually "negotiated" the JLN side of the confidence and supply arrangement with the Rockliff Government but, for whatever reason, the three elected JLN MPs signed it.  The Deal so needlessly limited the JLN MPs in terms of their ability to vote against the Government that when they broke the Deal by voting for a doomed Greens motion to compel the Government regarding its coastal policy, the Government either didn't notice or ignored the breach and it took the Labor Opposition to point it out.  (Edit: The Government then claimed the Deal hadn't been broken when it had, which soon resulted in the JLN MPs breaking it again on a motion re Forest Reserves.)

Tensions were apparent within the JLN from early on with Rebekah Pentland and Miriam Beswick having one approach and Andrew Jenner another.  Staffing was one issue where this came to a head.  There were further problems in early July when it emerged that the three state MPs had sent Jacqui Lambie a letter in June insisting she keep out of Jacqui Lambie Network state business, and alleging that she was directing state MPs on how to vote.

The catalyst for yesterday's events was the recent news that upgrades to the Devonport ferry terminal, needed for the overdue replacement for the Spirit of Tasmania ferries, had been bungled.  Lambie issued a release on August 15 demanding that Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure Michael Ferguson resign.  On 19 August JLN MP Andrew Jenner made comments that Ferguson's position was "untenable".  

On 20 August Lambie seems to have issued a press release - the verbatim text of which I have not seen because the Jacqui Lambie Network is beyond hopeless at publishing its output - saying that if Premier Rockliff did not sack Ferguson she would rip up the government's confidence and supply arrangement with the JLN.  This was bizarre to say the least since Lambie herself was not a signatory to the deal which, whoever drafted it, is between the government and the individual JLN MPs.

Saturday, August 24, 2024

2024 Northern Territory Election Live

Postcount tracking is continuing here. 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

START POSITION ALP 14 CLP 7 IND 4 (1 IND retiring)

POLLS HAVE CLOSED.  Massive swings to CLP, CLP has won a majority

EXPECTED WINS (some may not be absolutely certain) CLP 14 ALP 4 IND 2

Expected seats changing

Expected CLP gain vs IND (vacancy): Goyder, Blain

Expected CLP gain vs ALP : Karama, Fong Lim, Drysdale, Wanguri, Port Darwin, Sanderson

Seats in doubt:

Barkly: CLP likely to hold vs ALP

Casuarina: CLP likely to gain from ALP

Johnston: IND appears very likely to gain from ALP

.Nightcliff: Likely ALP hold

Fannie Bay: ALP vs Greens (outside chance CLP), Greens ahead.

If all current leaders/favourites hold, CLP 16 ALP 5 IND 3 Green 1

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Updates scrolling to the top  - refresh every 10 mins from 6:30 on for new comments

Thursday, August 22, 2024

"Unrepresentative Swill" - A Keating Line Way Past Its Use-By Date

"But one Treasurer borrows and turns a short term borrowing into a medium term borrowing—no more money is borrowed; a short term borrowing just becomes a medium term borrowing—without telling our Treasurer and our Treasurer immediately responds and tells him he has to regularise it and you, who let 75 per cent of borrowings run everywhere, have the gall to get up and talk about the Loan Council and to set up a Senate committee. Then you want a Minister from the House of Representatives chamber to wander over to the unrepresentative chamber and account for himself. You have got to be joking. Whether the Treasurer wished to go there or not, I would forbid him going to the Senate to account to this unrepresentative swill over there—"

With these words, spoken on 4 November 1992, then Prime Minister Paul Keating created a colourful insulting description of the Senate that has endured to this day, and is commonly seen when anyone wants to attack a Senator they do not like.  In the last month alone, Twitter users have used Keating's line at least 76 times, mostly but not exclusively to attack Senators or the Senate itself.  In the last month for instance it has been used especially to attack UAP Senator Ralph Babet, but also to attack Coalition Senators Linda Reynolds, Michaelia Cash, Gerard Rennick and Bridget McKenzie, JLN Senator Jacqui Lambie, Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, ex-Greens Senator Lidia Thorpe and ex-Labor Senator Fatima Payman.  But no Labor Senators, funny that.  

Saturday, August 3, 2024

"Safe Seats" Falling Is Nothing New

The Australia Institute and its director have been putting out a lot of its usual Hung Parliament Club type stuff about how "power sharing parliaments" are the new normal, how there are no safe seats anymore and so on.  They've been trying to claim that the rise of teals and the decline of major parties means the traditional 2PP swing-based model is more or less dead, although I actually nipped that view in the bud days after the election.  If major party vote shares keep declining we may sooner or later get to a point where 2PP swing-based models cease to be of much use, but 2022 wasn't even close.  See also here, where I point out that the Coalition didn't actually get a raw deal in the "non-classic" seats and what actually caused it to lose so heavily in 2022 was that Labor beat it on 2PP and thumped it on 2PP distribution in the classic Labor vs Coalition seats.

The "power sharing parliaments" analysis misleadingly lumps stable Coalition majority governments and non-majority upper houses in with the sort of thing we saw in 2010.  They're totally different: a true minority parliament involves a government that must make a fresh negotiation for supply and confidence and that continually depends on the crossbench for those things.  (Yes the Coalition has its own internal arrangement but it's a long time since there's been the slightest doubt that the Nationals or their precursors would continue to support a Coalition government).  When there is a "hung Senate" the passing of legislation is often at stake, but except in the most extreme cases supply is not, confidence is not, the composition of the Executive is not.  Hung Senates aren't generally perceived as causing potential stability issues, and the ability of governments to send them to double dissolutions if they keep blocking things can make it easier to browbeat them than it is to browbeat minority Reps crossbenchers.  The most successful governments use Senate obstruction, where it happens, to extend their own lifespans, by being able to signal to their base without having to put up with the consequences of policy their base likes being passed unamended.  A government majority in both houses can easily go to a government's head - cf Howard 2005-7 and Workchoices.

Saturday, July 27, 2024

Northern Territory Election 2024: Prospects and Polling

Welcome to my coverage of the Northern Territory 2024 election, which has snuck up on us all with just four weeks to go til polling day as I write.  NT politics often attracts derision among election-watchers for its tiny/barely inhabited electorates, crazy seat swings, frequent MP defections and elementary ethics fails.  Despite that though, I reject the view out there that NT elections deserve no more attention than a medium-large council.  NT elections are somewhat like state elections in their own unusual way, and are informative.  This one is something of a prelude to Queensland as the first chance for one of Labor's seven state and territory dominos to fall on PM Albanese's watch ... but will it, and how heavily if so?  Beyond this article, my coverage of NT 2024 will include a live article and a post-count piece (a la this, but they will be separate articles this year) and there may be prospects updates if there is anything to see.  

General properties of NT elections

The history of NT elections since self-determination splits neatly into two halves, 1974-1997 during which the CLP frequently changed Chief Ministers but invariably won, and 2001 onwards which, starting from Labor's first win under Clare Martin, has been a rollercoaster.  The 2020 election with a 2PP swing of 3.9% against the then Gunner Labor Government was in fact the most placid this century, with the five before it having swings (ALP) of 6.0, 11.1, -9.2, -5.1 and 13.3.  

The Northern Territory is affected (see bottom of article here), much as the states are, by what I call "federal drag" - all else being equal, incumbent governments are more likely to be whacked when the same party is in power federally.  2020 was one case where the swing went to the side in power federally, but that was off a ridiculously low base and still an easy win for Labor anyway.  

Because NT electorates have so few voters, many voters know their MLA personally and so NT elections have much larger personal vote effects than state and federal elections.  This has been a received wisdom in the psephology of the NT, but I hadn't seen anyone look at it for a long time so I checked it out myself.  I have found that on average since 1987 "sophomore" MPs (those defending their seat after winning it as a vacancy at the previous election) outperform their party's Territory swing by a mean 2.3%, median 1.4%.  "Double sophomores" (MPs who won their seat from the other side's incumbent at the previous election) outperform their party's swing by a mean of 3.2%, median 4.4%.  (The mean would be over 4% too but for the sample including Bess Price who lost the remote seat of Stuart, now Gwoja, at her first defence in 2016 with a 30.9% 2PP swing).  Vacant seats see the incumbent party underperform by mean 4.4%, median 2.2%.  Even when a sitting member has served only part of the term after retaining it for their party in by-election, that's still good for a deduction of mean 2.5%, median 1.4%.  Because of the wide variation in individual swings, causing the means and medians to be quite different, these figures give only a rough idea of the size of personal vote effects but they are clearly larger than elsewhere, where for instance "sophomore" and vacancy effects are worth about a point.  

NT elections also have high variations in swings between different seats in the same election.  Even in the sedate era of CLP dominance this was becoming a thing, with the 1997 election featuring an overall swing of 1.6% to CLP but also seeing double-digit swings in both directions in individual seats.  In the last four elections from 2008 on, the standard deviations in 2PP seat swings (albeit with some assistance from a one-election switch to optional preferences) have been 4.7%, 5.8%, 8.2% and 6.4%.  In compulsory voting states and federally the standard deviation is often in the 3-4.5% range. A factor here is that margin estimates for redistributed seats in the NT are unreliable.  

This particular election

The 2020 election was something of a return to whatever normal is for the Territory after the CLP was smashed down to two seats in 2016 following four years of absolute insanity (there's a book about it called Crocs In The Cabinet).   Labor won 14 seats, the CLP 8 and others 3 (independents 2 and the much-hyped Territory Alliance just scraped 1).  Labor won the 2PP 53.3-46.7 but were weighed down by a poor local economy in an election they would have won by more with the aid of COVID and federal drag.  COVID will not assist them anymore and the government is now eight years old and federally dragged itself, and all else being equal will lose seats, and perhaps several of them.  

Early in the term Labor historically won the CLP seat of Daly in a by-election.  They also retained Arafura with a massive swing to them after the death of the incumbent.  But things went pearshape for Labor late in 2023 after Michael Gunner's replacement Natasha Fyles came under pressure over a series of mining related conflicts of interest and eventually resigned.  Eva Lawler has been left to clean up the mess (and is widely considered to be making a good effort at that) but has not been helped by the continuing Alice Springs crime crisis that the government has had to fight with extra budgeted spending and on and off curfews.  

As I noted when she went Fyles is a rare case of a head of government who never faced an election; in three state-level cases of this the government rolled their second Premier for the term then lost the next election (two of those badly).  There is one prior case of a Territory government surviving under its third leader of the term, but that was when the second leader defected rather than resigning in disgrace.

Numbers go into the election at 14 Labor, 7 Liberal and 4 independents, but one independent is retiring at the election.  Counter-acting Labor's win of Daly, during the term Mark Turner (Blain) was for a long time suspended from caucus over a self-admittedly "not appropriate" relationship known generally in NT media as the "cocaine sex scandal" and then, very much later, kicked out of the broader party.   

Such polling as there is ...

Polling in the Territory has a reputation for being about as common as a vegan crocodile and doing not much better in the wild.  Not only are about six of the seats unpollable, but the small sample size in the remainder makes getting a representative sample seat by seat very difficult.  Despite this a uComms poll of Greater Darwin in 2020 proved to be very much on the money regarding the overall state of the parties.  

There may be more during the campaign but in the leadup we have so far had three polls.  A Redbridge poll in November 2023 had ALP 19.7% CLP 40.6% Greens 13.1% Independents 14% Shooters Fishers and Farmers 9.7% and Others 3.2%.  This poll was taken just at the start of the wave of COI scandals that eventually brought down Fyles; the 2PP might have been about 43-57.  The only poll since Lawler took over was a Freshwater Strategy poll released May 17 (date taken unknown) with Labor trailing 46-54 off primaries of ALP 29 CLP 39 Greens 9 and "independents" 22.  

Freshwater has had pretty good results at its few public tests so far.   Some hope for Labor against its numbers might be found in the federal poll's habit of being slightly stronger for the Coalition than other polls (but only by about 1%). Also the later of two private Freshwater polls for the Tasmanian election had a far worse result for Labor than occurred (that said this poll was still a few weeks out from that election).  

A less widely related poll (indeed I was not aware of it until reading comments sections on Tally Room just before finishing this article) was reported in the NT News on 24 June (link paywalled) and is a uComms of Darwin/Palmerston for the NT Environment Centre, but taken in March and April.  After redistributing initially undecided voters the poll had both majors on 35.7%, with a 57.5% flow of preferences suggesting that Labor would have a 2PP of about 52.1 for Darwin and Palmerston, a mere 2.1% swing against by my numbers.  While the 2020 uComms poll, also commissioned by an environment group, was very good, uComms polls can be very erratic.  The breakdown of other parties and independents in this poll is not available (I do know that Green, IND and others were the options offered, but not the support levels.) 

All these polls overestimate non-major voting options compared to what is likely to occur at the election, simply because of lack of suitable candidates.  The Shooters are not running at all (they are not even registered), the Greens have so far announced only seven candidates and tend not to run in every seat, and only ten seats so far (update Aug 4: twelve now) have independents.  So unless these numbers increase greatly, many prospective voters for these forces will probably not find anyone worth voting for and will go back to the majors.  In 2020 the Greens ran in 10 seats and recorded 4.4% of the Territory vote while independents recorded 10.7% from 17 seats.  

I may add notes on any further NT polls to this article or I may cover them separately.

Seat roundup

At the time of writing the Wikipedia article while highly useful has not been fully adjusted for the 2023 redistribution.  An estimate of notional margins based on the 2020 election can be found at The Tally Room.

Of the CLP's seven seats, Spillett (13.9%) and Nelson (22.8% vs ALP, 8.5% vs IND) are not going anywhere on a two-party basis.  Their remaining seats, Brennan (2.9%), Katherine (2.3%), Braitling (1.3%), Namatjira (0.3%) and Barkly (0.1%) are all very marginal on paper, but if there is a substantial swing to the CLP then all would be expected to hold easily, especially as the CLP has sophomore effect on its side in all of them ("double sophomore" in Brennan and Braitling.)  The CLP marginals are also not attracting much interest from indies, aside from Sam Phelan in Katherine.  

On the Labor side, there are a lot of complications.  Casuarina (16%), Gwoja (16.2%), Johnston (16.1%), Nightcliff (23.8%), Sanderson (18.8%) and Wanguri (17.3%) are on very high margins, though Wanguri is vacant and it will be interesting to see if Fyles' 2020-4 term dents her very large margin in Nightcliff.  (As a guide to how "safe" seats can fall in the NT when they're vacant, Barkly fell last election despite a margin of 15.8%).  

Some Labor seats are attracting some indie interest including former Darwin Lord Mayor Graeme Sawyer in Wanguri, David-Pocock-endorsed (!) Justine Davis in Johnston and Mililma May running against Fyles in Nightcliff.  I understand Davis to be running an especially prominent campaign with a high volunteer presence.  Yes the NT has teals too, but here they run in Labor seats and in cases with Gouldian finch logos!  Where I mention challenger indies in this piece I have no idea if they're competitive, I just point out some of possible interest. (I understand the Greens to be campaigning most vigorously in Braitling and Fannie Bay, both seats with no independents so far, as well as Nightcliff which is a traditionally strong seat for them).  

Further down the scale for Labor there are Fong Lim (2.1%), Drysdale (5.3%) and Karama (8.3%); these are all at varying levels of risk to the CLP if the swing is on and even more so is Port Darwin (2.1%) which is vacant and would hence have a good chance of falling even in a zero-swing election.  In Drysdale, Eva Lawler is likely to get some sort of vote boost for becoming Chief Minister, and might need it: Labor has only previously won Drysdale at the three elections where it won the 2PP.  

Now some even trickier cases, in alphabetical order:

Arafura (3.6%) is a remote Indigenous seat which saw a mid-term vacancy by-election.  Normally the low margin and the mid-term vacancy would make this seat likely to go on any swing but a caution about that is that incumbent Manuel Brown won the by-election with an enormous swing to him (15.6%).  A narrative here is that CLP mixed messages on the Voice to Parliament played a role, but I don't know if that's really true or not.  

Arnhem (1.6% vs IND, 17.6% vs CLP), another Indigenous seat, seems like it's the sort of seat at risk from an independent but not from the CLP, except the danger there is that the 2020 independent who nearly won, Ian Mongunu Gumbula, is now the CLP candidate.  

Daly (CLP 1.9%) is a seat disrupted by a mid-term change in ownership - in 2020 it had a CLP incumbent, it now has a Labor incumbent who won the by-election with a 7.3% margin.  Disrupted seats tend to behave somewhere between their previous margin and their by-election margin, but might behave more like the latter in the NT where personal vote effects are so large.  I'm considering it as more like a Labor marginal on, say, 5%, which is still risky.

Fannie Bay (10.9%) seems like it is on a hefty margin and should be safe unless the swing is very wild but was vacated mid-term and by Michael Gunner at that.  The seat has an erratic past history having been at times held easily by heavy hitters on both sides and could conceivably fall if Labor does badly.  

Now to the seats held by the crossbench:

Araluen (IND vs CLP 0.5%) - Robyn Lambley's margin in her Alice Springs based seat looks super precarious but nobody from the majors seems to be running against her so far, which seems ... really odd.  

Blain (ALP vs CLP 1.4%, IND-occupied) is a seat Labor had never won before Mark Turner picked it up in 2020, but with Turner now kicked out and the margin so small it would seem very challenging for Labor.  (For what it's worth they're not losing a personal vote since they didn't have one in 2020 either, but I suspect it's not worth anything much.)  One might think from afar that Turner's travails would seal his fate but a few weeks back the NT News referenced increasing views that Turner will survive, even citing a nameless CLP source calling him "a certainty'.

Goyder (IND vs CLP 6.7%, CLP vs ALP 14.4%) is former Speaker Kezia Purick's seat which she is retiring from.  Purick has endorsed Belinda Kolstad, a recently former CLP member and one of three independents running.  Purick's margin is not large enough to be sure if the endorsement will translate.  

Mulka (IND vs ALP 4.7%) - the CLP didn't run last time against YolÅ‹u independent Yingiya Mark Guyula who at this stage has attracted no challengers at all.  (Update: it appears that Labor will this time not run against Guyula while the CLP still say they are running.)

Overall 

Absent of any polls I would expect Labor to lose on average something like four seats here and probably just lose government compared to the 2022 election, just based off the NT behaving a lot like a state where federal drag is concerned.  Two of the three polls available are somewhat worse than that, while one is better.  A swing matching the one in the middle (the Freshwater poll) could potentially take Labor as low as six seats, though something like eight or nine would seem more likely for that swing based both on historic seat totals and on the seats where Labor would still have some arguably good chance.  To retain office, Labor most likely need to hold the swing to something more manageable, like, say, 4% (this is more than the swing in the uComms poll), and then to be lucky with the distribution in particular seats where there are arguments in their favour.  Uneven regional swing is also something to watch out for - Labor's best scenario would be a swing concentrated in Alice Springs where they don't have any seats left anyway.  What objective information there is mostly suggests that Labor deserve underdog status (currently a 40% chance in betting odds, which are not necessarily reliable), but not strongly enough to be all that confident of the outcome.  Hopefully there will be more polls before election day.  

Nominations Update

There are 80 candidates (25 CLP, 24 Labor, 11 Green, 20 independent/unendorsed.)  The 20 independents are running across 15 seats.  This is the fewest candidates since 2008 (65) which was also the last election with only three parties.  The number of indies might seem like a lot but the last two elections had more.  Labor is not contesting Mulka, which is handy for 2PP swing terms as it will be outside the 2PP for two elections in a row.  

See also

Tally Room guide 

Poll Bludger guide

ABC guide

Sunday, July 21, 2024

Effective Vote Spreading: Labor's Hidden Hero At The 2022 Federal Election

This article is about two incorrect narratives about the 2022 election.  I commonly see false claims on social media that Labor only won the 2022 election - not just in majority but at all -because of Green and teal preferences.  These claims are made by certain right-wing posters, mostly of the silly and Trumpy variety, who seek to delegitimise the result because the primary vote winner didn't win the election and the winner's primary vote was unusually low.  But there is another narrative that is more mainstream, which is that while Labor's win was fair enough, the Coalition was hard done by in seat terms because of its seat losses to teal independents.  I show here that that narrative is not really true either, and that the real reason the Coalition's seat share was so bad compared to Labor's was that its vote was poorly distributed in the classic two-party seats.  Most of this article is very numbery so it's been graded Wonk Factor 3/5.

Of course, Greens voter preferences do greatly benefit Labor, and had Green voter preferences split 50-50 Labor would not have won ten seats that it did, and who knows who would have governed in that mess.  But Green preferences favouring Labor is simply part of the scenery, and some other parties' preferences assist the Coalition.  The Coalition only "leads" on primary votes because it is a coalition of two parties that, after decades of fighting each other in some states, choose to mostly work together instead of wasting resources competing everywhere.  Labor and the Greens could sort out their differences and make a similar arrangement if there was any strategic point in doing so, but in their case there currently isn't.  

As concerns teals (whether they won or not), while their 2PP preferences heavily favoured Labor, in most seats where they ran that did not help Labor since Labor failed to make the final two.  This included seven seats that teal independents won, and six where independents who were generally teal-adjacent made the final two but lost.  Yes there were some seats where such candidates were cut out and the contests finished as classic Labor vs Coalition contests, and yes teal preferences helped Labor in those.  But Labor mostly didn't win those anyway (Boothby is one they did win), and there is not a single one where Labor won but would have lost had the teal voters' preferences split 50-50.  In strategic terms the teals were a nuisance to the Coalition, forcing them to fight a second front and making criticisms that may have driven votes to Labor in other seats.  In terms of votes actually polled, however, all they did was take six seats from the Coalition in an election it had already lost outright.  Labor won 72 classic seats where it did not need an edge on their preferences, plus five seats where the Coalition was excluded in lopsided Labor vs Greens contests.

Wednesday, July 3, 2024

The Payman Suspension

Party-hopping is becoming a pretty common occurrence in Australian federal politics.  The last time the Reps managed to complete a term without anyone quitting or being kicked out of their party in either house was way back in 1983-4, and that was a term with more than a year lopped off it by an early election.  Since then there's been an average of three defections/expulsions per term, with the last four terms scoring four, eight, four and so far five, and the five seems about to be six.

Genuinely interesting policy defections aren't abundant among the 42 I found in the last 40 years.  This roughly annual event seems to most often happen as a result of internal tensions, especially in minor parties.  Deselection and/or misbehaviour are also common triggers.  There was a Voice policy dimension to the recent departures of Andrew Gee from the Nationals and Lidia Thorpe from the Greens, but both were isolated cases that did not turn into broader breakaway movements from the party.  We now have at least the prospect (it could well happen tomorrow) that WA Senator Fatima Payman will leave the ALP, which will be a first case for the Australian federal party of an issue that has plagued its UK counterpart for years - losing or deciding to lose MPs for their positions re the Middle East.

If Payman leaves the party this will be the first defection from the Government in this term.  For comparison the Hawke/Keating government lost by my count just two MPs in 13 years, the first of them coming after ten years being Keith Wright who was kicked out after recontesting as an independent after being disendorsed.  The Howard government had three defections even not counting Pauline Hanson in its first term, another in its third and an internal party-switch in its fourth.  The Rudd/Gillard government's only casualty was Craig Thomson, while the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison government had six in nine years (Jensen, Bernardi, Banks, Kelly, McMahon and tokenly Christensen).  

Tuesday, June 25, 2024

"Freedom Parties" Did Not Cost One Nation A WA Senate Seat

Sometimes I find items of interest in the oddest ways.  Today I was searching for tweets about WA Labor (as of 3:45 pm) Senator Fatima Payman in connection with her possible stance on a Greens motion that the Senate consider recognition of Palestine to be a matter of urgency.  I found this tweet by Mark Rowley, to which he links a video in which he tells Pauline Hanson how One Nation was diddled out of a 6th Senate seat by "freedom friendly" micro-parties, hence blaming them for the election of Payman.  

I thought this was an interesting thing to look into.  I find that minor right wing media is often a hotbed for incorrect claims about the electoral system and election results and this case is no different.  

Payman won the 6th Western Australian Senate seat over Filing by a margin of 23490 votes.  Rowley's video singles out three particular micro-parties, the Great Australian Party (led by former One Nation Senator Rod Culleton, who was disqualified from the Senate in 2017), the so-called "Informed Medical Options Party" (IMOP) and the Australian Federation Party.   These parties between them polled 27791 primary votes.  Rowley says that if these parties had voted for "the likes of One Nation" (are there any likes besides One Nation itself?) the party "would have been looking at a 6th Senate position".

Monday, June 17, 2024

Ralph Babet Was Elected Fair And Square. I Know It's Hard But Try To Deal With It

For the avoidance of any doubt at all, I'll start with my view of the subject of this article.  Most of what I see of United Australia Party Senator Ralph Babet is his social media output, and it is awful.  He delivers dumbed-down denser-than-even-Sky-News versions of what were in general stupid ideas to begin with (MAGA nonsense, supposed conspiracies against Christians and western culture, whining about "wokeness", gender, sexuality and multiculturalism, and baiting people who would rather at least try not to get COVID).  Babet is perhaps our purest yet elected example of what happens when you spend way too long inhaling what Christopher Hitchens called "the exhaust fumes of democracy", and then attempt to breathe them out. His Senate career so far has been even cringier than very early Jacqui Lambie.  As with Bob Katter, the concussed-sounding nuttiness of Babet's output frequently leads to debates about whether he's just harmlessly insane or whether some of what he's saying might dangerously affect a few impressionable chaps out there.  Think you can tell I'm not a fan.  

Saturday, June 15, 2024

The Draft Boundaries Would Not Put Labor On The Edge Of Minority

The current round of draft redistributions is complete with the release of the NSW proposal today, following the Victorian and WA proposals two weeks ago.  While the Victorian redistribution led to an outbreak of unsound psephology with false claims that the Kooyong redistribution greatly favoured the Liberal Party (I wrote about this for Crikey), the NSW washup has been pretty sensible, for the first day at least.  One thing I have seen that seems hard to credit is the idea that Kylea Tink, whose seat is proposed to be abolished, would win the now even more marginal Bennelong off two major parties fighting tooth and nail for it.  This is a general article about the impact of the draft changes.  A note that I am not a primary source for redistribution margin estimates, and am here largely relying on the work of Ben Raue, William Bowe and Antony Green for those.

The Victorian draft proposes that part of the boundary of Kooyong expands to take in part of Higgins.  The key issue in the shortlived Frydenberg-comeback debacle was that there's no obvious way to project how an independent would have done if their seat is expanded into an area they didn't previously run in.  One can use the 2022 preference flows from the present Kooyong to distribute votes for Labor and the Greens et al between the Liberals and Monique Ryan (IND) as if Ryan had been running in the new bits, but that means assigning Ryan a primary vote of zero in the new part.  It's saying that voters who would vote 1 Ryan 2 Liberal, for instance, don't exist in the new bit, but we know they do exist in the old bit, or she would not have won the seat.

Wednesday, May 29, 2024

EMRS: The Election Chaos Hasn't Moved The Dial

EMRS Tas(state) LIB 35 (-1.7 since election) ALP 28 (-1) Greens 15 (+1.1) JLN 7 (+0.3) IND 12 (+2.4 but probably overstated) others 3 (-1.1)
Seat estimate for these primaries unchanged from election (14-10-5-3-3-0)
Better Premier Rockliff leads Winter 40-32 (lead up 5) but new leaders usually underperform on this score

The 2024 Tasmanian election had a remarkable outcome, one which polls in broad terms saw coming.  The Rockliff Liberal government was sent deep into minority while the Labor opposition gained only two of the ten expansion seats and was outnumbered by the crossbench.  Following this, Labor controversially decided not to attempt to form government, with leader Rebecca White resigning and being replaced unopposed by Dean Winter, who soon announced that Labor now supported the proposed Macquarie Point AFL stadium.  

The Liberals formed a controversial (but not for them) arrangement with the Jacqui Lambie Network, who attracted criticism for giving away too much without any need to do so, and over secrecy surrounding the minor party's internal structures.  Later the Liberals formed a more standard confidence and supply agreement with independent David O'Byrne, and released something that they claimed to be the same with independent Kristie Johnston.  (On my reading Johnston has guaranteed supply but has said all confidence matters would be considered on their merits, and has outlined an approach to confidence questions including commitment to pre-discussion.  In any case the Liberals don't strictly need Johnston's vote.)  The Parliament resumed with the unusual touch of an Opposition Speaker, the first since the 1950s.  

Sunday, May 19, 2024

Budget Week Rolling Poll Roundup

2PP Aggregate 51.2-48.8 to ALP (last election preferences)
Pre-Budget aggregate was 51.0-49.0 
(Topline number for this article frozen as of 28 May, Budget week now being well and truly over.)

Note: False claims have been published by The Australian, Sky News and others about Newspoll, see the Newspoll section below.  



Sunday, May 12, 2024

Why Does Suspending Standing Orders In The Tasmanian Assembly Require A Two-Thirds Majority?

UPDATE:  Following this article - and I have been told this article had some influence - the House on 14 May suspended Standing Orders 358 and 359 for the current Session, replacing them with this: 

"358 Suspension of Standing Orders

Any Standing Orders or Orders of the House, except Standing Order No. 94, may be
suspended on a Motion duly made on Notice or without Notice, provided that such
Motion has the concurrence of a majority of the Members present."

This is not necessarily a permanent change.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One thing that I have noticed in Tasmania's parliamentary debates that I find strange is that suspending standing orders without notice requires a two-thirds majority.  In the Standing and Sessional Orders from the previous term this appears as item 358:

"358 Standing Orders not suspended without Notice.

In cases of urgent necessity any Standing Order or Orders of the House, except Standing Order No. 94, may be suspended on a Motion duly made without Notice, provided that such Motion has the concurrence of a two-thirds majority of the Members present.

359 Motion for suspension carried by majority. 

When a Motion for the suspension of any Standing Order or Orders appears on the Notice Paper, such Motion may be carried by a majority of the Members present."

(Standing Order 94, for anyone wondering, is the procedure for rescinding previous votes, which requires three days notice and, if the decision is less than a year old, support of an absolute majority).  

Saturday, May 4, 2024

Legislative Council 2024: Elwick, Hobart and Prosser Live

Elwick: Thomas (IND) has won c. 53.3-46.7 after preferences

Hobart: CALLED 9:01 pm Cassy O'Connor (GRN) wins (final margin was 59.7-40.3)

Prosser: Kerry Vincent (Lib) has won c. 52.9-47.1 after preferences

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donations welcome!

If you find my coverage useful please consider donating to support the large amount of time I spend working on this site.  Donations can be made by the Paypal button in the sidebar or email me via the address in my profile for my account details.  Please only donate if you are sure you can afford to do so.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Live comments (scrolls to top)

All numbers posted here are unofficial.  Check the TEC site for current figures.  Comments will appear here once counting starts - refresh every 10 mins or so for updates.  Note that Green in Prosser is Bryan Green the Labor candidate not the Greens.

--

Final Wrapup And The Road Ahead

It's all over bar a trivial number of votes to be added in the next week and these are the party standings in the new Legislative Council with the seat changes compared to the start of the year:

Saturday, April 27, 2024

The Tide Is Going Out For Queensland Labor

...and when the tide goes out in Queensland, they say that it goes out a long way ...

Yesterday's YouGov poll finding the Miles government trailing 44-56 led to a minor outbreak of poll denialism on social media (I've so far seen versions of A4, C4, C6, C8 and C9), but Steven Miles himself was not denying the polling at all, commendably admitting that it looked "most likely" that his government would lose in October.  (Just whatever you do, Premier, don't actually concede before election day!) I haven't covered Queensland polling since I gave the Courier Mail a big roasting for some really bad poll reporting in December 2022 and a return to Queensland polls is overdue.  It happens this time that the poll is so bad for Labor that even the Courier Mail can't spin it as much worse than it is.

It's worth noting that Queensland Labor during its nine years in power has often polled indifferently.  In the 2015-7 term it trailed on 2PP in a third of the published polls, but never worse than 48-52.  In the 2017-20 term there was less polling and there had been a few shabby looking numbers (again no worse than 48-52) before the COVID-19 pandemic arrived in 2020 and lifted all governing boats.  The Palaszczuk government ended up slightly outperforming its final polling, but it was a very sparsely polled election.  Going into the 2024 contest that is now just six months away, it looks like we might see a higher volume.

Sunday, April 14, 2024

Every Child Wins A Prize: Federal Seats With Swings To All Contestants

During last night's Cook by-election count there were a few comments about the swing column.  All six parties/independents had recorded a positive swing from the 2022 election.  In the case of Cook this was not at all surprising - three of the parties and the one independent had not even run in the seat in 2022, so their "swing" was automatically plus.  The Greens were always going to get a primary vote swing with no Labor candidate and no prominent left/centre independent.  That left the Liberals, and the question was whether they could gain enough primaries from the 34.6% who voted Labor, UAP or One Nation in 2022 to compensate for replacing a former Prime Minister and 17-year incumbent with some dude from outside the electorate.  This they did with 7% to spare and lo and behold there's a neat little line of pluses in the swing column for the recontesting candidates:

(Apologies to AEC, I've pinched the Wikipedia version for clearer display)

This is a common event in by-elections where one major party doesn't contest.  It has happened by my count in 9 of 21 such by-elections in the last 50 years, the others being Perth and Batman 2018, Higgins 2009, Isaacs 2000, Holt 1999, Blaxland 1996, Wentworth 1995, and Menzies 1991.  Perth 2018 achieved this feat despite having 15 candidates, however only three parties were recontesting.  Blaxland 1996 had five recontestants - I should note that I treat an independent as such only if it is the same person running and doing so as an independent both times.