Yesterday, the Australian Electoral Commission performed an act which in a rational world would have excited no interest. Since last weekend the commission has featured a “national two party preferred result” on the front page of its Virtual Tally Room, which has assumed tremendous psychological interest as Labor’s margin has steadily eroded from 0.6 per cent to 0.4 per cent. However, the tally had a flaw which biased it in Labor’s favour: there were no Labor-versus-Coalition figures available from strongly conservative Kennedy, Lyne, New England or O’Connor, where the notional two-candidate preferred counts conducted on election night involved independents. This was only balanced out by left-wing Melbourne, where Labor and the Greens were correctly identified as the front-running candidates for the notional count. For whatever reason, the AEC decided yesterday to level the playing field by excluding seats where the notional preference count candidates had been changed since election night, which in each case meant left-wing seats where the Liberals had finished third to the Greens (Batman and Grayndler) or Andrew Wilkie (Denison). The result was an instant 0.4 per cent drop in Labor’s score, reducing them to a minuscule lead that was soon rubbed out by further late counting.
In fact, very little actually changed in yesterday’s counting, which saw a continuation of the slow decline in the Labor total that is the usual pattern of late counting. The media, regrettably, has almost entirely dropped the ball on this point. Mark Simkin of the ABC last night reported that Labor’s lead had been eradicated by the “latest counting”, as opposed to an essentially meaningless administrative decision. Lateline too informed us that Labor’s two-party vote had “collapsed”, and Leigh Sales’ opening question to Julie Bishop on Lateline was essentially an invitation to gloat about the fact. Most newspaper accounts eventually get around to acknowledging the entirely artificial nature of the 50,000-vote reversal in Labor’s fortunes, but only after reporting in breathless tones on the removal of votes that will eventually be put back in.
The reality is that nobody knew who had the lead on the two-party vote yesterday morning, and nothing happened in the day to make anybody any the wiser. The Prime Minister equally had no idea on election night when she made her ill-advised claim to the two-party majority mantle. Only when all seats have reported Labor-versus-Coalition counts, which is probably still a few weeks away, will we be able to say for sure. The best we can do at present is to construct a projection based on the votes counted and our best assumptions as to how the gaps in the vote count data will be filled when all the figures are in.
At present we have completed “ordinary” polling day totals for all electorates and advanced counts of postal votes in most cases, but there has been no progress yet on absent or pre-poll votes in roughly half. Where counting of any of these three categories has been conducted, I have projected the party results on to the expected total of such votes (derived from the “declaration vote scrutiny progress” for absent and pre-poll votes, and from the number of applications for postal votes discounted by 16 per cent as per experience from 2007). Where no counting of a particular category has been conducted, I have compared the parties’ 2007 vote share in that category with their ordinary vote share, and applied that difference to the ordinary vote from this election. For example, the 2007 Liberal two-party vote in Canberra was 7.19 per cent higher than their ordinary vote share, so their 40.54 per cent ordinary vote at the current election has been used to project an absent vote share of 47.73 per cent.
For Batman, Grayndler and Denison, I have used the figures from the two-party Labor-versus-Liberal counts that were conducted in these seats from ordinary votes on election night, calculated the swing against the ordinary vote in 2007 and projected it over the expected absent, pre-poll and postal totals. For Melbourne, New England and Kennedy, where no Labor-versus-Coalition figures are available, I have used preference shares derived from the Labor-versus-Coalition counts from the 2007 election to determine the swing on ordinary votes, and projected that swing through the other categories. It’s with Lyne and O’Connor that things get crude, as we have no case study of how Rob Oakeshott’s or Wilson Tuckey’s preferences split between Labor and Nationals candidates. For O’Connor, which has at least been a Labor-Liberal-Nationals contest at successive elections, I have crudely arrived at a 7.9 per cent swing against Labor derived from the primary vote swing plus moderated by a 70 per cent share of the swing in favour of the Greens. The best I could think to do for Lyne was average the two-party swings from the neighbouring electorates, producing a 5.14 per cent swing against Labor.
Plug all that in and here’s what you get:
Labor 6,313,736 (50.02 per cent)
Coalition 6,307,924 (49.98 per cent)
In other news, Andrew Wilkie says the two-party vote total is “not relevant” in determining which party he will back. Good for him.
UPDATE: An Essential Research poll has it at 50-50, which is “unchanged” – I’m not sure if this is in comparison with the election result or a previously unpublished Essential result from a week ago. Basically no change on preferred prime minister. UPDATE 2: The 50-50 from last week was indeed an unpublished Essential result from their rolling two-week average, which they understandably felt was not worth publishing under the circumstances.
[Speaking of Christine Wallace. What did you think of her comments re Malcolm Turnbull. She suggested Julia give him a call.]
The very idea of his waiting around for a call from Jools defies what I know of MalT’s personality. Isn’t his tendency to rush in where angels – including fallen ones – fear to tread one of his dominant personality traits?
If he’s for “the Turning”, Jools would already know about it. IMO, he’s hoping Abbott gets done & he and “l”iberals can set about rebuilding the Party of Menzies & Co, and Fraser. And good on him.
Gos@142
Have you seen how the Labor Party reacts to this? Not pretty…
*it’s. Apostrophe fail.
BH 112
Yes that wonderful footage of SM was hilarious. By the way, did you notice how excited Fran Kelly was at that presser? She was the only journo who looked delirious with happiness.
[Did Gillard make the 2PP claim on election night? I don’t recall that. I distinctly remember her claiming in in a press conference a couple of days after the election though.]
That’s my recollection also. Brandis was the only person I saw for sure maklng those claims on election night.
[By the way, did you notice how excited Fran Kelly was at that presser? She was the only journo who looked delirious with happiness.]
Fran Kelly for Bennelong? 😛
I’d like to see how Turnbull would explain a defection to his consitituents, who thought they voted for a Liberal. Ridiculous to think he’d even consider it.
[If he’s for “the Turning”, Jools would already know about it. IMO, he’s hoping Abbott gets done & he and “l”iberals can set about rebuilding the Party of Menzies & Co, and Fraser. And good on him.]
I suggest that he is hoping Abbott loses, too. If Abbott wins, he’ll likely be around for a while since he will have a saviour/messiah tag in the party — brought them back from the brink etc. etc. Which, will consign Malcolm to the back bench forever. I don;t think they like each other (little wonder — Malcolm is a small ‘l’ whilst Abbott is a big ‘A’ (put in whatever word you like … ars*%^le, animal, Abbott {since he likes himself most}… any epithet will do).
I made a formal complaint abut the story last night, as I am sure others did. I pointed out the inaccurate story had been on site for over an hour. When I looked again about half an hour later it had been changed to include a paragraph about five in regarding the removed seats. The misleading headline was untouched.
I notice that Wilkie wants the NBN compleded in TAS as one of his demands and am thinking how would Abbott concede to this without backflipping ?
Fran Kelly is proof that not all gay people necessarily follow politics that is pro-gay (ie gay marriage).
What Antony (‘god has spoken’) Green says:
[“That the two-party preferred total displayed on the AEC’s website is meaningless can be seen if you tally the members elected in these 142 electorates. You get Coalition 72, Labor 70. Missing are four Independents, a Green, a WA National and two Labor MPs.”]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/31/2998169.htm
So now the 2PP count has been rendered subjective and therefore stripped of negotiating power.
[If Abbott wins, he’ll likely be around for a while since he will have a saviour/messiah tag in the party ]
jenauthor – I agree with TSOP too – Abbott will play this very coolly and be cuddly and gentle with the Indies and the Greens until 2013. If he wins in his own right then we’ll have to watch out. He won’t be letting go of his and Howard’s IR agenda or any of the RW things he wants.
Malcolm will be left on the outer. Maybe he should start is own party after all.
chinda63
#146
Yes, I would agree that a climate portfolio in Julia’s ministry would be the obvious inticement for Malcolm. As you say, Malcolm has been playing his cards very close to his chest. I just can’t read what he is thinking at at the moment.
Also neither side will drop the Tamar mill and pokies will be a stalemate as well. Both parties can chuck a few hundred mill at Hobart Hospital but Abbott wants to close the GP superclinics. Given the state of these policies it seems to me Labor has most of them covered anyway with current policy.
It’s all eyes on Wilkie I would say. He’s going to declare his position first. If he goes for Labor they can get to 77 and the coalition only 76. The three others want stable government and more than a bare 76 if they can get it.
I am going to make this point,
The biase reporting has been the reporting of the first 10 days, whenever someone stated a 2PP led for the ALP, the reporting was incorrect, becuase 3 Coalition leaning seats was excluded from the 2PP
So I think the eroneous reporting of today and last night, balances the eoneous reporting of the last 10 days
@Musrum. No. It is clear the Nationals don’t ike it much thugh.
triton
I heard on radio this morning that Wilkie has said he may decide today. It would make it a lot easier for Julia at the Press Club if she knew which way Wilkie was going.
Im no big fan of Gillard – but suggesting she shouldnt have played the 2PP card is silly given the context: Brandis et al were ranting about it on election night (wrongly), and then Abbott was banging on about primaries as well. I cant blame her for pointing out a. Brandis was wrong and b. responding to Tones.
In any case, I yet to see a single professional psepho who predicts anything but a narrow ALP 2PP win.
As we say, the game is in the seats – but lets not be pollyanna here. Perceptions matter, and both sides have been acting accordingly.
If I have to choose an ALP/Liberal MP to switch side
It would no doubt be Kevin Rudd, Turnbull was estatic on election night and is looking for a ministry in Abbott’s government and would be a hugh asset.
Rudd, I bet Labor take the first chance they have to get rid of him
[I notice that Wilkie wants the NBN compleded in TAS as one of his demands and am thinking how would Abbott concede to this without backflipping ?]
Original Coalition policy was to leave the Tasmanian leg of the NBN intact as it’s a separate company and local Libs were/are for it so he only has to say that on reflection Plan A is the way to go.
ABC radio just reported that the rural indies have suggested that it may take weeks to decide which way they will go. “Weeks”
I really wish the MSM and others would stop this lazy reference to ‘The Coalition’.
The Coalition does not exist in Opposition. What people should be referring to is the Liberal party, the National Party, the LNP, the WA Nationals, the CLP etc. etc.
If ‘The Coalition’ wants to exist in Opposition, then let their Coalition Agreement and their parliamentary entitlements reflect that.
@ Punna
The TAS leg hasn’t been completed yet and Abbott wants to sell it off to private enterprise which doesn’t mean it will be finished properly.
[victoria
Posted Tuesday, August 31, 2010 at 10:41 am | Permalink
ABC radio just reported that the rural indies have suggested that it may take weeks to decide which way they will go. “Weeks”]
So if Wilkie sides with labor Gillard can recall parliament and test the numbers on the floor of the house.
[Original Coalition policy was to leave the Tasmanian leg of the NBN intact as it’s a separate company and local Libs were/are for it so he only has to say that on reflection Plan A is the way to go.]
Yes, but they also want to privatise it. Wilkie wants to remainder of the NBN to be rolled out by the end of 2012 in Tasmania doesn’t he? Fat chance of that under a privatised NBN.
[The TAS leg hasn’t been completed yet and Abbott wants to sell it off to private enterprise which doesn’t mean it will be finished properly.]
Yes that’s the position he ended up with but he can easily revert to the earlier one I outlined.
I was pointing out that it’s not a huge backflip (or more accurately a 180) to allow the Tas NBN to proceed.
Turnbull was ecstatic on election night because he got a huge swing to him in his already safe electorate – and all done without Liberal Party signage.
He knew he had strengthened his *personal* hold on the electorate, which makes it easier for him to go his own way, knowing he would have their support.
Mark my words; keep and eye on Malcolm. 😉
*an
Sylvia Hale is set to announce her resignation from the NSW Legislative Council.
I like a lot of people are stressed out regarding the delayed outcome but how must Abbott and Gillard be feeling now after the ups and downs of the last 2 months ?
I think there’s a growing chance the Indies will abstain.
Put yourself in their shoes:
a. They want NBN (and therefore, reluctantly or otherwise, Gillard). No doubt about this in my mind, and
b. The coming senate means Abbott is untenbale inside a year anyway, but
b. Its tricky, residual conservative political loyalties etc.
Id say there a real chance they’re hoping Wilkie will break the 73-all deadlock and then they’ll just roll with that, abstain, and say “hey, the people didnt actually boot her out, why would we overrule them?”
Yes it is Punna, all the arguments they’ve been making about the NBN won’t magically disappear just because they’re only rolling it out in Tasmania.
You don’t think Labor could make a big deal about how it’s good enough for Tasmania but not for the rest of Australia?
@ Punna
This would certainly blow a big hole in Abbotts budget would it not.
[I’d like to see how Turnbull would explain a defection to his consitituents, who thought they voted for a Liberal. Ridiculous to think he’d even consider it.]
I agree it is unlikely that Turnbull would switch – but I dont think it is a zero possibility
And yes a goodly number of his constituents would be very unhappy; however, as I mentioned before, Turnbull’s campaign in Wentworth was 99.9% Malcolm, and a fig-twig of Liberal…and he got a huge swing toward him of some 10%, rather much more than the NSW Liberal swing of 4%, which I guess is part of his (unbelievable; literally) transmogrification to environmental saint
chinda63
snap! 🙂
The IND’s all had dinner last night so I wonder if they have cooked up a scenario that leaves them all saving some face and the status quo to remain in place
TPP now back to 50:50 as at 10.31 update.
lefty e #181
How does your Indies abstention scenario deal with the little matter of a speaker?
Paul_J – I wonder whether there was any discussion about whether or not they would be voting as a bloc.
Have they indicated specifically that this would be the case? I got the impression that this was wishful thinking on people’s (in particular, the Coalition’s) behalf, rather than anything that has been said. After all, they are three individuals who are answerable to their own individual electorates. If one of those Indies was in a clearly Left-wing seat then it beggars belief they would agree willy-nilly to throw their hat in with two, say, ultra-conservative Right-wing Indies.
I think they are just continuing to sound each other out and to talk tactics, but ultimately they will vote as individuals (although they would naturally factor in what the others are doing if they are serious about delivering stable governance).
Dinkum, ALP + Wilkie + Bandt (Jenkins remaining speaker) and Katter, Oakeshott and Windsor abstaining, would create a 73/73 deadlock on supply and confidence. Jenkins could then put the casting vote in Labor’s favour.
I still think that scenario is untenable. The rural independents will need some sort of deal to take back to their constituents, particularly after all the song and dance of the past week.
I think they have said they will negotiate as a bloc but not neccesarily vote as one which leaves the way open for them to avoid supporting one side or another. As for the speaker role who knows at this stage.
I said last week I thought Wilkie is the key and havn’t seen anything to date to dispell this.
[You don’t think Labor could make a big deal about how it’s good enough for Tasmania but not for the rest of Australia?]
Sure. But would it get reported anywhere during an Abbott regime?
@ITEP
At least that way though the IND’s arn’t don’t have to take the heat one way or another regarding support for govt but can influence policy.
[TPP now back to 50:50 as at 10.31 update.]
I can’t wait for the ABC to breathlessly report each time the TPP number swings from ALP to Coal and vice versa. That should allow them to fill hours of news without actually reporting anything of worth.
confessions
[Did Gillard make the 2PP claim on election night? I don’t recall that. I distinctly remember her claiming in in a press conference a couple of days after the election though.]
It was on Monday night. Brandis said it on election night.
[I wonder whether there was any discussion about whether or not they would be voting as a bloc.
Have they indicated specifically that this would be the case?]
I thought they all said that would be the preferred outcome in the interests of stable government.
William. There are a number of seats where Labor has not been included in determining the overall support. 2PP., The Commission has in fact distorted the assessment in its “correction” In seats such as Melbourne they should do a ALP versus LNP. Not sure how you would calculate those seats where the ALP did not stand.
But in general the 2PP nationwide has not value unless your comparing Apples with Apples,