Australia 2022 Election

[Pericles]

Wentworth is probably most similarly economically and culturally to an electorate like Wimbledon, professionals, wealthy people, socially liberal and elite. The likes of Islington in Australia still vote solidly for Labor; Granalyder, Sydney etc. Australia is probably more class polarised than England in urban metropolises, but voting patterns are largely the same.

The places comparable to Grayndler could be those London constituencies which had a big Green vote in 2015 (by some distance the Green Party's best general election in terms of votes). Holborn and St Pancreas springs to mind, not least because of whose seat it is.

Now that you mention him, Albanese's strategy is similar to Starmer's. Both have been talked down for their small target strategy, but one has a wide open path to victory with just weeks to go. If victory is won, then this should encourage Starmer that the big strategic calls he has been making as leader are sensible.

For New Zealand politics, I would be more encouraged by a Scott Morrison victory for Labour's 2023 odds. Both governments have taken serious blows over their vaccine rollouts and the global inflation surge. Jacinda Ardern could be able to survive what Morrison can't, because she has more personal popularity and there is less of a sense of this being a tired old government. However, no incumbent wants to have an election now and we will just be hoping that we are better off in 2023 than we are on either side of the ditch right now.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Wentworth is probably most similarly economically and culturally to an electorate like Wimbledon, professionals, wealthy people, socially liberal and elite. The likes of Islington in Australia still vote solidly for Labor; Granalyder, Sydney etc. Australia is probably more class polarised than England in urban metropolises, but voting patterns are largely the same.

The places comparable to Grayndler could be those London constituencies which had a big Green vote in 2015 (by some distance the Green Party's best general election in terms of votes). Holborn and St Pancreas springs to mind, not least because of whose seat it is.

Now that you mention him, Albanese's strategy is similar to Starmer's. Both have been talked down for their small target strategy, but one has a wide open path to victory with just weeks to go. If victory is won, then this should encourage Starmer that the big strategic calls he has been making as leader are sensible.

For New Zealand politics, I would be more encouraged by a Scott Morrison victory for Labour's 2023 odds. Both governments have taken serious blows over their vaccine rollouts and the global inflation surge. Jacinda Ardern could be able to survive what Morrison can't, because she has more personal popularity and there is less of a sense of this being a tired old government. However, no incumbent wants to have an election now and we will just be hoping that we are better off in 2023 than we are on either side of the ditch right now.

I don't know, Arden might be more personaly popular but the NZ electorate is more flexibile and prone to swings than the australian ones. And even a flawless government would be hard pressed to solve the main issue of housing prices driving much of the annoyance with her government.

[Pericles]

Wentworth is probably most similarly economically and culturally to an electorate like Wimbledon, professionals, wealthy people, socially liberal and elite. The likes of Islington in Australia still vote solidly for Labor; Granalyder, Sydney etc. Australia is probably more class polarised than England in urban metropolises, but voting patterns are largely the same.

The places comparable to Grayndler could be those London constituencies which had a big Green vote in 2015 (by some distance the Green Party's best general election in terms of votes). Holborn and St Pancreas springs to mind, not least because of whose seat it is.

Now that you mention him, Albanese's strategy is similar to Starmer's. Both have been talked down for their small target strategy, but one has a wide open path to victory with just weeks to go. If victory is won, then this should encourage Starmer that the big strategic calls he has been making as leader are sensible.

For New Zealand politics, I would be more encouraged by a Scott Morrison victory for Labour's 2023 odds. Both governments have taken serious blows over their vaccine rollouts and the global inflation surge. Jacinda Ardern could be able to survive what Morrison can't, because she has more personal popularity and there is less of a sense of this being a tired old government. However, no incumbent wants to have an election now and we will just be hoping that we are better off in 2023 than we are on either side of the ditch right now.

I don't know, Arden might be more personaly popular but the NZ electorate is more flexibile and prone to swings than the australian ones. And even a flawless government would be hard pressed to solve the main issue of housing prices driving much of the annoyance with her government.

The one bright side is that housing prices are now coming down and supply is increasing, but the 30% price increase during the pandemic is unlikely to be reversed completely, and home ownership was already out of reach for many young people before then. You have a valid point, but it would be even for us crazy to have a 24% lead wiped out in one election, and New Zealand does like to give each party 9 years in government.

[Pulaski]

RBA has raised interest rates. Certainly makes the cost of living argument stronger.

Didn't think they would actually do it in an election campaign and risk swinging the outcome. This is the second time the Coalition has been screwed by a mid-campaign interest rate hike.

What would the other time be? 2007?

Yep, those interest rate rises really ripped apart the Howard government's economic focus.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

RBA has raised interest rates. Certainly makes the cost of living argument stronger.

Didn't think they would actually do it in an election campaign and risk swinging the outcome. This is the second time the Coalition has been screwed by a mid-campaign interest rate hike.

What would the other time be? 2007?

Yep, those interest rate rises really ripped apart the Howard government's economic focus.

I imagine it hurt particularly hard because Howard campaigned so hard on the rates issue in 2004.
Good thing for ScoMo that he didn't make keeping rates low the centerpiece of his campaign in 2019.

[Pulaski]

RBA has raised interest rates. Certainly makes the cost of living argument stronger.

Didn't think they would actually do it in an election campaign and risk swinging the outcome. This is the second time the Coalition has been screwed by a mid-campaign interest rate hike.

What would the other time be? 2007?

Yep, those interest rate rises really ripped apart the Howard government's economic focus.

I imagine it hurt particularly hard because Howard campaigned so hard on the rates issue in 2004.
Good thing for ScoMo that he didn't make keeping rates low the centerpiece of his campaign in 2019.

I think with things like this, a good chunk of the population knows that the PM doesn't set interest rates and has little control over all the economic factors that go into setting them, but once people are looking for an excuse to vote against you then it's as good as any. In 2007 the real reason the Coalition lost was WorkChoices and the perception they'd been in government too long; the rate rises just deprived them of the opportunity to pivot back to the economy. This time it's a little different as "cost of living" seems to be the number 1 issue anyway, but this should (hopefully) be the cherry on top that really galvanises voters.

[morgieb]

The other issue is that the Australian population is far more concentrated in state capitals than in other countries, Queensland aside. If the Liberals wrote off Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth they would mathematically be locked out of rule in those states.

Australia is one of the worlds most urbanised countries, that means that any competitive party has to be able to win over urban voters.

https://www.yapms.com/app/?t=Australia_house_of_representatives
I toyed with this, created a "Bogans and Miners Party" colored purple, gave it everything besides the insets, and ended up with only 48 seats, roughly 60% the amount needed for a majority.
And that's already including many districts located along the coast that are basically urban, and outer metropolitan.

Stuff like this is why I always get confused when people assume a GOP-style party would do well in Australia. The Coalition hold far more upper-class "liberal" electorates than Labor do Red Wall style ones. Even the likes of Newcastle are still largish cities....

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The other issue is that the Australian population is far more concentrated in state capitals than in other countries, Queensland aside. If the Liberals wrote off Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth they would mathematically be locked out of rule in those states.

Australia is one of the worlds most urbanised countries, that means that any competitive party has to be able to win over urban voters.

https://www.yapms.com/app/?t=Australia_house_of_representatives
I toyed with this, created a "Bogans and Miners Party" colored purple, gave it everything besides the insets, and ended up with only 48 seats, roughly 60% the amount needed for a majority.
And that's already including many districts located along the coast that are basically urban, and outer metropolitan.

Stuff like this is why I always get confused when people assume a GOP-style party would do well in Australia. The Coalition hold far more upper-class "liberal" electorates than Labor do Red Wall style ones. Even the likes of Newcastle are still largish cities....

You'd have to adjust for relative population density. Even then, the way it works in Australia, a "Down Under GOP" would waste heaps of votes in safe districts, not too unlike the SA Liberals.

[Pulaski]

Essential has Labor ahead 49-45 on their weird "2PP Plus" metric.

Roy Morgan has Labor ahead 55.5-44.5.

Newspoll: 53-47 Labor.

Resolve doesn't do 2PP in their result, but based on 2019 preferences their latest has Labor 54-46, with two-thirds reporting having made up their minds.

Early voting starts from next week, Monday the 9th.

Time running out fast for the Coalition.

[DL]

Why does the National Party still exist? Why don't they just merge with the Liberals given that they are de facto the same party

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Why does the National Party still exist? Why don't they just merge with the Liberals given that they are de facto the same party

Because they represent rural areas in a way the liberal never has and can never do.

[DL]

Why does the National Party still exist? Why don't they just merge with the Liberals given that they are de facto the same party

Because they represent rural areas in a way the liberal never has and can never do.

I've heard that argument, but there are Liberal MPs from rural areas and if the Liberals are such a "big tent" party surely they can easily accommodate having some MPs from rural constituencies. I don't see other rightwing parties needing to create a rural "sub-brand". There is no separate party for UK Tories who have a lot of farmers in their constituencies and ditto for Canada and New Zealand. Just seems like an odd anachronism

[YL]

Why does the National Party still exist? Why don't they just merge with the Liberals given that they are de facto the same party

Because they represent rural areas in a way the liberal never has and can never do.

I've heard that argument, but there are Liberal MPs from rural areas and if the Liberals are such a "big tent" party surely they can easily accommodate having some MPs from rural constituencies. I don't see other rightwing parties needing to create a rural "sub-brand". There is no separate party for UK Tories who have a lot of farmers in their constituencies and ditto for Canada and New Zealand. Just seems like an odd anachronism

I think it is relevant that Australia is such an urban country, meaning that rural areas are more likely to be worried about being marginalised, even within the Right.

In some states the Nationals have maintained more of a separate identity, whereas in Queensland and the Northern Territory they are actually merged, as the Liberal National Party and the Country Liberal Party respectively.

[DL]

In Australian political history has there ever been a moment where the coalition between the Liberals and Nationals was anything less than a foregone conclusion?

Have the Nationals ever flirted with making a deal with Labour instead?

have the Liberals ever won a majority on their own and not needed to include the Nationals?

has there ever been any major issues that has caused a genuine rift between the two parties?

[Хahar 🤔]

Why does the National Party still exist? Why don't they just merge with the Liberals given that they are de facto the same party

It seems fairly clear at this point that the answer is tradition. The success of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party in NSW suggests that the National Party there is not adequately fulfilling its stated purpose of representing non-metropolitan interests, and at this point most states/territories have merged their Country/National organization with their Liberal organization or else never had one to begin with. NSW and Victoria are exceptions with their maintenance of the traditional coalition.

In Australian political history has there ever been a moment where the coalition between the Liberals and Nationals was anything less than a foregone conclusion?

Have the Nationals ever flirted with making a deal with Labour instead?

have the Liberals ever won a majority on their own and not needed to include the Nationals?

has there ever been any major issues that has caused a genuine rift between the two parties?

The answer to all of these questions is yes, albeit mostly at the state level and mostly long ago. The National Party organizations in SA and WA are much more willing to work with Labor, but they have a much more ambiguous relationship to the central National organization (and, in the case of SA, the National Party there is a new organization anyway).

[DL]

One effect of the preferential ballot in Australia is that it creates and "instant primary" between Liberal and National candidates in seats that they are both trying to win.

[Ebowed]

The other issue is that the Australian population is far more concentrated in state capitals than in other countries, Queensland aside. If the Liberals wrote off Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth they would mathematically be locked out of rule in those states.

No disagreement there, but I will add an observation: the National party is likely to do quite well in this election, regardless of how the Liberals fare.  The agricultural policy debate was missed by most urban commentators but it did not go unnoticed in regional electorates.  The general vibe is that the ALP has completely written off any attempt on making any gains with rural or regional voters in this election - which is not to say that they cannot win without them, but it will certainly complicate the task.  And with party operatives no longer expecting any seats in Queensland to change hands, it does limit the number of options available.  The strategy now is to dominate in WA, make gains in NSW and Tasmania, and hold the fort in Victoria (Chisholm remains a possible gain to offset likely losses in McEwen and Dunkley).

[Continential]

Who are you supporting Ebowed if you support someone/plan on ranking the main two parties? I remember you supported Labor before the pandemic but I'm not sure who you are supporting?

[Ebowed]

I do think the Coalition will end up winning. A decade of Liberal government and nothing accomplished.

This feels a weird election to assess. Not sure whether 2019 trauma is to blame or whether it's because of how people see the candidates (Scotty disliked but approvals holding up better than you'd might expect and Albo not really being seen positively) but I honestly have no idea where this could go. I could see the Coalition pulling it out of the fire, I could see Labor winning in a landslide.

Most likely result seems a narrow Labor majority but it's certainly not something I feel comfortable prediciting.

The problem with predicting this election is that it feels more like there are dozens of simultaneously held by-elections than a truly national election.  There are a lot of unknowns and wildcards.  And it's entirely understandable that people would take the mood of themselves and those around them and extrapolate that onto the wider public, but the nature of Australia's state border closures over the last couple of years means that certain economic conditions vary wildly from location to location.  And then we also have the growing phenomenon of inner-city electorates embracing what is sometimes comically / erroneously referred to as a "post-materialist" position on environmental and social issues.  (Obviously, if the teal independents, or indeed even the Greens, posed a genuine threat to their accumulated wealth, then we would be having a very different discussion.)

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

The other issue is that the Australian population is far more concentrated in state capitals than in other countries, Queensland aside. If the Liberals wrote off Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth they would mathematically be locked out of rule in those states.

No disagreement there, but I will add an observation: the National party is likely to do quite well in this election, regardless of how the Liberals fare.  The agricultural policy debate was missed by most urban commentators but it did not go unnoticed in regional electorates.  The general vibe is that the ALP has completely written off any attempt on making any gains with rural or regional voters in this election - which is not to say that they cannot win without them, but it will certainly complicate the task.  And with party operatives no longer expecting any seats in Queensland to change hands, it does limit the number of options available.  The strategy now is to dominate in WA, make gains in NSW and Tasmania, and hold the fort in Victoria (Chisholm remains a possible gain to offset likely losses in McEwen and Dunkley).

Was the ALP ever able to compete for farmers ?. Seems like a loosing stratagey to focus on a block that almost never votes for you and isn't located in that many competive ridings.

[EastwoodS]

The other issue is that the Australian population is far more concentrated in state capitals than in other countries, Queensland aside. If the Liberals wrote off Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth they would mathematically be locked out of rule in those states.

Australia is one of the worlds most urbanised countries, that means that any competitive party has to be able to win over urban voters.

https://www.yapms.com/app/?t=Australia_house_of_representatives
I toyed with this, created a "Bogans and Miners Party" colored purple, gave it everything besides the insets, and ended up with only 48 seats, roughly 60% the amount needed for a majority.
And that's already including many districts located along the coast that are basically urban, and outer metropolitan.

Stuff like this is why I always get confused when people assume a GOP-style party would do well in Australia. The Coalition hold far more upper-class "liberal" electorates than Labor do Red Wall style ones. Even the likes of Newcastle are still largish cities....

There’s people who think the GOP would do well in Australia? They high? I’d say a 2020-2022 Romney is about as far right the coalition goes, with the most left wing coalition member being somewhere similar to a moderate Democrat. Long story short, the coalition would have a mix of moderate/ liberal GOP type senators and moderate Dems. Labour would definitely be your more extreme Dems in the US and greens would be something left of AOC. Your more conservative/ liked Republicans wouldn’t affiliate with liberals, they’d be more in line with fisher farmers or one nation as would most American Republicans

[Property Representative of the Harold Holt Swimming Centre]

The other issue is that the Australian population is far more concentrated in state capitals than in other countries, Queensland aside. If the Liberals wrote off Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth they would mathematically be locked out of rule in those states.

Australia is one of the worlds most urbanised countries, that means that any competitive party has to be able to win over urban voters.

https://www.yapms.com/app/?t=Australia_house_of_representatives
I toyed with this, created a "Bogans and Miners Party" colored purple, gave it everything besides the insets, and ended up with only 48 seats, roughly 60% the amount needed for a majority.
And that's already including many districts located along the coast that are basically urban, and outer metropolitan.

Stuff like this is why I always get confused when people assume a GOP-style party would do well in Australia. The Coalition hold far more upper-class "liberal" electorates than Labor do Red Wall style ones. Even the likes of Newcastle are still largish cities....

There’s people who think the GOP would do well in Australia? They high? I’d say a 2020-2022 Romney is about as far right the coalition goes, with the most left wing coalition member being somewhere similar to a moderate Democrat. Long story short, the coalition would have a mix of moderate/ liberal GOP type senators and moderate Dems. Labour would definitely be your more extreme Dems in the US and greens would be something left of AOC. Your more conservative/ liked Republicans wouldn’t affiliate with liberals, they’d be more in line with fisher farmers or one nation as would most American Republicans

How party X from nation Y would do in nation Z is a dodgy game. It has to be taken into account that parties and politicians would generally adjust themselves to the circumstances of the nation they moved to. There's quite a few Coalition figures (Dutton springs to mind) who would fit comfortably into the GOP, but have to be somewhat more moderate at home. Similarly the GOP would probably be more moderate (just as it is in certain US states) if it started an Australian branch.

[Ebowed]

Was the ALP ever able to compete for farmers ?. Seems like a loosing stratagey to focus on a block that almost never votes for you and isn't located in that many competive ridings.

They typically don't support the ALP, no, but there is widespread discontent among regional electorates if the ALP would bother to even make the effort to tap into it.  It's not wise to read too much into these debates*, but the performance of the Labor shadow minister was so bad that even the left-leaning papers admitted it.  That being said, it's interesting how little I've seen about regional independents this time around - there was quite a lot of hype in 2019 (misplaced, as it turned out).

*Another one today - Josh Frydenberg vs Jim Chalmers for the treasurers debate.  I haven't had time to review the whole thing but the clips seem to indicate that Chalmers was the winner, for whatever that's worth.  (Frydenberg is obviously pretty distracted given the difficulties he's facing in keeping his own seat.)

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Was the ALP ever able to compete for farmers ?. Seems like a loosing stratagey to focus on a block that almost never votes for you and isn't located in that many competive ridings.

They typically don't support the ALP, no, but there is widespread discontent among regional electorates if the ALP would bother to even make the effort to tap into it.  It's not wise to read too much into these debates*, but the performance of the Labor shadow minister was so bad that even the left-leaning papers admitted it.  That being said, it's interesting how little I've seen about regional independents this time around - there was quite a lot of hype in 2019 (misplaced, as it turned out).

*Another one today - Josh Frydenberg vs Jim Chalmers for the treasurers debate.  I haven't had time to review the whole thing but the clips seem to indicate that Chalmers was the winner, for whatever that's worth.  (Frydenberg is obviously pretty distracted given the difficulties he's facing in keeping his own seat.)

What's the source of this discontent, trade deals or something else ?

Given the negative partisanship that exists for the ALP perhaps leaving the task of tapping into this discontent to various indepednets is the best stratagey for weakening the national party.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Historically the Labor party did do quite well in rural western NSW and Queensland, the party itself famously being founded in Barcaldine. But that rural strength went into terminal decline from the 50s to the 70s. It's oft forgotten but historic base of the Country Party wasn't the outback but the wealthier districts of the NSW north coast and northern Victoria.