Australia 2022 Election

[DL]

Can’t we PLEASE use this thread to discuss the upcoming Australian election and what the polls are saying and how the campaign is going. This argument about Covid restrictions is totally off topic and is also really really BORING!

[DL]

Two. We polls out today. News poll still has Labor ahead on 2PP 53-47 and essential has Labor ahead 54-46. Were it not for the polls having underestimated the Coalition in 2019 people would regard this election is a done deal and a Labor win as a virtual certainty. Presumably polling companies have tweaked their models to avoid repeating the mistake of 2019

[DL]

Sometimes pollsters can over correct and the error in polls doesn’t always go the same way. In 2010 and in 2017 the polls in the UK underestimated Labour. In 2015 they underestimated the Tories. In Australia there tends to be less polling misses because voting is compulsory and so there is less of a differential turnout factor. Apart from 2019 I think in every other Australian election I can remember the polls were highly accurate. Though wasn’t there an election in the early 90s when Labor under Paul Keating had a shock win when everyone echoed them
To lose?

[DL]

What is that makes higher income people who are socially liberal and care about the environment so résistent to simply voting for the Labor Party, as opposed to voting for all these so called “teal independents”? It’s not as if the ALP stands for socialist Revolution. In the UK just about all of those urban “remain” types who care about climate change vote Labour. Is it some weird cultural vestigial attitude that makes professional university educated types in Australia look down their noses at the ALP because they grew up being told that only “icky manual labourers” voted ALP?

[DL]

In the UK just about all of those urban “remain” types who care about climate change vote Labour.

They certainly do not, except as a tactical choice on occasion. In fact both the question and the answer is exactly the same as 'why do people in Richmond never vote Labour when they're cross with the Conservatives?'

Yes, but Labour wins some pretty upscale seats like Islington etc...The thing that surprises me is that the Coalition is even still competitive in upscale inner city electorates like Wentworth. Seats like that in Canada are now totally unwinnable for the Tories and in the US professional urban voters have completely turned their backs on the GOP. And its not as if the Liberals in Australia have done anything to make themselves more palatable to urban quasi progressives - they are led by a fundamentalist Christian, they are totally xenophobic and into complete climate change denial.

[DL]

*I think the way Toronto is cut up doesn't create any great analogies, but neighborhoods like Rosedale, Forest Hill and/or Bridle Path if united into a single riding would be a good analogy - and that seat probably would be winnable for the Tories.

I'm not so sure about that...with Canada's Tories now embracing anti-vax conspiracy theories and crypto-currencies, attacking so-called elites and wanting to force municipalities to increase density in leafy residential areas - I think any vestigial federal Tory support among Rosedale bluebloods will evaporate very quickly. If Pierre Poilievre means what he says, Toronto will have to allow high rise apartment buildings to be built anywhere anyone wants to be build one - even its in the middle of Rosedale!

Anyways, back to Australia. I remember being surprised that the Liberals were not totally blown out of the water in urban upscale seats in Sydney and Melbourne when they were led by Tony Abbott who one would think would be a total turn off to those people. I just assumed that in Australia is just ingrained in the DNA of a lot of educated professionals that "rich successful people" vote Liberal and only losers vote ALP.

Perhaps these so-called "teal independents" appeal to Australians who see themselves as too smart to vote Liberal and too rich to vote ALP

[DL]

Its funny how some of this "class voting" is based on such outmoded ideas of what party represents what class and what is in what class's best interest.

For example, if you are wealthy business person living in Chelsea or a professional living in Hampstead, there is nothing you could vote for that would be more totally DESTRUCTIVE to your own self-interest than the pro-Brexit Tories under Boris Johnson! Seriously, no one has more to lose on a personal level from Brexit than anyone in London who is a wealthy professional or a business person. And yet, due to some vestigial "snob appeal" that the Tories still retain, many of these plutocrats and other well-off folk will still suicidally vote for the party that brought them Brexit etc...

[DL]

In the UK just about all of those urban “remain” types who care about climate change vote Labour.

They certainly do not, except as a tactical choice on occasion. In fact both the question and the answer is exactly the same as 'why do people in Richmond never vote Labour when they're cross with the Conservatives?'

Yes, but Labour wins some pretty upscale seats like Islington etc...The thing that surprises me is that the Coalition is even still competitive in upscale inner city electorates like Wentworth. Seats like that in Canada are now totally unwinnable for the Tories and in the US professional urban voters have completely turned their backs on the GOP. And its not as if the Liberals in Australia have done anything to make themselves more palatable to urban quasi progressives - they are led by a fundamentalist Christian, they are totally xenophobic and into complete climate change denial.

Whatever the leadership, the Coalition is still a "big tent" entity--in fact, if you want a Canadian equivalent of the Aussie dynamic, look no further than the part of Canada that's closest to Australia.  That is, BC, where you have a currently-in-power "Labor" entity (the BCNDP) vs, well, the fittingly-named BC Liberals mashing up the interior rednecks w/the urbane Langara/Quilchena types...

The BC Liberals do identify themselves as a "free enterprise coalition", similarly to the Coalition, and both unify a bunch of elements opposed to socialism into one entity.

Ironically there is no major party in BC (or anywhere in Canada) that is in any way, shape or form “socialist”. Some would even classify the NDP as anti-socialist these as well (or at least non-socialist). Seriously, the NDP government in BC is about as "socialist" as the Democratic governor of Washington state! Similarly can anyone keep a straight face and call the Australian Labor Party “socialist”? When was the last time the ALP campaigned on the workers owning the means of production and ending private property??? These days what we are seeing more and more is liberals and social democrats forming alliance to keep out the rabid extreme right. The idea of a so-called "free eneterprise coalition" is very much an anachronism. I mean who exactly is against "free enterprise" in any North American or European jurisdiction?

[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

[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

[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?

[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.

[DL]

I think people are in denial about just how big a win the ALP is set to have. Polls are now averaging an 8 point lead in two party preferred. That is a landslide for Australia. I know people feel burned by what happened in 2019 but it reminds of how after the polling error in 1992 people in the UK still kept insisting that the Tories could still win in 1997 even when every poll gave Labour a double digit lead.

[DL]

Isn’t there a longtime bias towards the incumbent on the “best PM” question? For the Coalition to have a chance at winning Morrison would have to be beating Albo by like 20 points and the public would have had to have truly disqualified Albanese. That has clearly not happened.

I seem to recall that in 2019 Shorten was seen as a major liability to the ALP and he was always trailing by double digits on best PM...but the ALP only lost the 2PP by 51.5 to 48.5

[DL]

I'm surprised there is so little polling in Australia compared to other countries. In Canada in the recent federal election there were literally 3 or 4 national polls released every day of the campaign with several daily trackers etc... In the UK as well every day of a campaign you have multiple polls. Ditto for the recent French elections. But in Australia its just two polls PER WEEK and that's it! Any explanation?
 

[DL]

I'm surprised there is so little polling in Australia compared to other countries. In Canada in the recent federal election there were literally 3 or 4 national polls released every day of the campaign with several daily trackers etc... In the UK as well every day of a campaign you have multiple polls. Ditto for the recent French elections. But in Australia its just two polls PER WEEK and that's it! Any explanation?
 

In fairness it’s more like 4-5 different pollsters per week.

Wonder if 2019 has something to do with it?

Nah - even in 2019 there were very few polls by Canadian, British or American standards. Maybe 3 or 4 polls per week - compared to 3 or 4 polls PER DAY in the other anglo countries.

[DL]

Has there ever been any talk of all these so-called “teal independents” (why are they called teal btw?) creating a new national political party?

[DL]

Has there ever been any talk of all these so-called “teal independents” (why are they called teal btw?) creating a new national political party?

When you put blue and green together you get teal.

In other words if they were a party they would be the Australian equivalent of the LibDems

[DL]

Interesting to see this massive swing by Chinese voters against the Coalition. In the recent Canadian election Chinese voters swung massively against the Tories and cost them several seats.

https://twitter.com/redrabbleroz/status/1527081791143956480?s=24&t=yBdWEEQ30ZLv8uM3pwxJQQ

[DL]

Are their any hotly contested seats that have significant Chinese-Australian votes?

[DL]

If the "teals" are all about climate change and the environment why aren't they all running for the Green Party? What issues would a Green MP and a "teal" MP disagree on? 

[DL]

If the "teals" are all about climate change and the environment why aren't they all running for the Green Party? What issues would a Green MP and a "teal" MP disagree on? 

Mainly Economics and some social issues, Teal Mp's tend to be in favour in of traditional LNP economic polices as well as more moderate on social issues than the green.

What would be an example of a social issue where a teal might feel the Greens were too progressive? Are any of the teals against abortion rights or want to disallow same sex marriage? and how exactly does anyone propose to take drastic action on climate change while also keeping "traditional LNP economic policies"? Doesn't one preclude the other?

[DL]

So are the "teals" basically a reincarnation of the old Australian Democrats?

[DL]

Has anyone calculated what the seat count would have been in Australia if there was no preferential ballot and it was pure FPTP like in the UK or Canada?

[DL]

Has anyone calculated what the seat count would have been in Australia if there was no preferential ballot and it was pure FPTP like in the UK or Canada?

It's not easy, because you can't just assume that people's first preference votes would become their only preference votes.  I assume that in practice a lot of first preference votes for parties out of contention would have instead been tactical votes, but you'd have to estimate the extent to which that would happen.

I realize that if you change system people may vote differently - though in Canada having pure FPTP doesn't prevent over 30% of people from voting for smaller parties! I just want to know how many seats each party would have won last week in Australia if we just counted who led on first preferences. Period.