Just a very quick post to put up a prominent link to my debut article for The Guardian, a general preview of the Queensland election:
Queensland 2020 elections will be a test of state's COVID response
(This is a single commissioned piece, similar to commissioned pieces I have done in the past for other outlets, most frequently The Mercury. I thank the Guardian very much for their interest in my work.)
There has been much discussion of the progress, or lack thereof, of electoral reform in Tasmania in recent weeks. Most of this discussion has focused on donation law reform issues including disclosure requirements, possible donation caps and potentially public spending. These matters were addressed in the Electoral Act Reform Report, which was reportedly completed in December 2019 but remains unreleased. Premier Gutwein has stated that the progress on electoral reform is not a priority for the government at the moment because it is occupied with coronavirus-related challenges.
There is still (barring an early election, regarding which speculation has declined) plenty of time for reforms to House of Assembly donations processes to be passed prior to an expected March 2022 election, should the parliament choose to do so. (My broad view is that donation reform before that election - to increase both the range and timeliness of required disclosures - would be extremely desirable as the current requirements are far too lax, but that spending caps require very careful consideration to avoid the errors of a previous attempt.)
Advance Summary
1. One of the most important factors in state election outcomes is the influence of whether the governing party at state level is in Government or Opposition federally. To be the same party as the federal Government is a disadvantage.
2. Another important factor is the age of the state government, with governments tending to do worse the longer they have been in office.
3. In the last six years, all same-party state governments that have faced elections have lost seats in significant numbers.
4. In the meantime, two of the three opposite-party governments gained seats (though one very old opposite-party government was defeated, but with a 2PP swing to it.)
4. It might seem logical that if the federal government at one state election was the same as at the previous election for that state, then this factor would not generate further swings against an incumbent state government of the same party, or further protection for one of the opposite party.
5. However, the evidence suggests otherwise. It appears that more voters continue turning against state governments that are of the same party as the federal government, over successive elections, even when the same federal government had been in office at the state election before.
EMRS August Liberal 54 (+11 since March), Labor 24 (-10), Greens 12 Others 10
EMRS May Liberal 52 Labor 28 Greens 10 Others 10
Seat projection if August poll is accurate Liberal increased majority (15-16 Lib 6-7 ALP 2-3 Green)
Seat projection if May poll is accurate Liberal increased majority (15-16 Lib 7 ALP 2-3 Green)
Lowest combined Labor/Green primary vote in EMRS history
Finally we have some new voting intention polling for Tasmania courtesy of the release of an EMRS poll for August accompanied by a back-released poll for May.
We already knew that Premier Peter Gutwein was enjoying virtually universal popularity in the state, courtesy of his Australian record 90% approval rating but it was unclear whether this was translating to anything much in voting intention terms. It seemed especially doubtful that it was after the Liberals' very high profile candidate Jo Palmer only snuck across the line by 260 votes in the Rosevears Legislative Council contest a month ago, while Labor had a storming win in Huon (albeit without an official government candidate). This all put to bed building speculation about an early Tasmanian election, but that speculation may return now, although an early election that could create COVID risks would be a risky idea absent of any narrative as to why it was required. For sure, the disastrous showing by Labor in this poll will trigger leadership speculation, and when the numbers are this stark, the momentum for change sometimes quickly becomes unstoppable.
The voting intention results, if realised at an actual election, would result in an increased Liberal majority, the obvious comparison point being the 2014 state election (Liberal 51.2 Labor 27.3 Greens 13.8 and the Liberals managed 15 seats, though with some help from a lucky breakdown of individual vote shares in the seat of Braddon.) That does not mean we can reliably assume that an election called right now would see such results, as polling bounces caused by unusual events will often deflate as voters focus on an election campaign.
The much-awaited Eden-Monaro preference flows are finally out, following some time after the distribution of preferences, and it's useful to make some comments about these. (Also see Antony Green's comments.)
Labor won the by-election by 735 votes (50.39% 2PP). This means that had 368 voters who preferenced Kristy McBain instead preferenced Fiona Kotvojs, Kotvojs would have won. This is relevant for checking various claims about preferences of particular parties deciding the result. In my Eden-Monaro live thread I set some markers at the time for particular preference shifts causing or not causing the result.
Did Nationals preference flows weakening cause Labor to win?
Answer: Yes - but this isn't necessarily what it looks like. In Eden-Monaro in 2019 an unusually strong 87.16% of Nationals preferences flowed to Fiona Kotvojs. At the 2020 by-election the flow was only 77.73%, making a difference of 571 votes to each side's total, and a difference of double that to the margin. While it was unrealistic for the very high flow from 2019 to have been maintained, any flow above 81.08% would have resulted in the Liberals winning the seat. That figure is almost exactly the 2019 national average in contests where the Nationals were excluded, so the switch from an above-average to a below-average Nationals to Liberals preference flow can be said to have cost the Liberals the seat.
