Moral majority

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.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

3,640 comments on “Moral majority”

Comments Page 71 of 73
1 … 70 71 72 73

  3. TW also talked about their meeting with Treasury at 2 pushed back to 4:30 wtte “much interaction with Coalition giving Treasury assumptions/interpretations”

  10. [ I quite like Windsor’s uber laid back deliver – that he choose to break the news himself – i think means something – just not sure what.
    ]

    THAT Windsor is the power house behind the country Independents (despite claims made on this blog by someone who pounces around making out he is “knowledgeable” that Oakeshott is the leader).

  12. [Might be my browser, but Betfair appears to have pulled betting on “Which party will provide the next prime minister after the 2010 election?”]

    Working OK on my iPhone App. Labor bet price now at 2.2, coalition at 1.56.

  13. Yes, of course it’s the fault of that Labor stooge Ken Henry – the line we’ll get from the Libs and their media friends!
    Imagine if there’s a Labor minority government in place by this time next week – Phoney will go into meltdown, and we’ll be in for the biggest almighty political dummyspit ever.
    The serious aspect to this is that I fear the Liberals would be deliberately obstructionist until July, and virtually nothing would get through the Senate.
    Definitely off to bed now – good night to Frank in WA! 😉

  14. Peter.. is that the truth.. or is Windsor more keen to show up on TV because his position in his electorate doesn’t depend on Labor/Green preferences?

  15. VP @3505
    from link
    [Mr Windsor says the Treasury analysis probably explains why Mr Abbott was cagey with his figures.

    “We probably understand now why he wasn’t interested in releasing the numbers and so I think we all await an explanation of where these significant differences are in terms of interpretation,” he said.

    Mr Windsor says Labor’s election promises were pretty much spot on.]

  16. [The Age

    Abbott’s $7 billion BLACK HOME]

    Pity the article does not mention the lower figure of $7bil is dependant on cost savings from scraping unspecified projects

  20. Tony was always going to be uber-obstructionist in the Senate if he didn’t get the nod – none of the current brouhaha will change that much. Thankfully that probably won’t matter – things will chug along in stasis until July next year with Julia negotiating with the Greens and indies about the various bits of legislation to come, and then go to town. If the government lasts until then, she’ll definitely have some results to show for being in power.

  21. Punna

    I saw that post also, and I think they said it was on Skynews. not sure if was a live interview. It may have Been BK, can’t remember properly.

  22. From the australian link

    [“The Treasury is saying the Coalition went to the election with something like $3.3bn of new money in terms of commitments to projects and what they are essentially saying now is that they have intended to scrap the equivalent amount of $3.3bn in projects]

    Cudos to the OO for making that point.

    Pity they failed to mention that neither the public nor the indepndant’s know what these savings are

  26. Frank Calabrese said: “Someone is about to be consuming a nice Fecal Sandwich – and it ain’t me”

    You already have – it’s called the first government in 60 years that was so hopeless to lose their first term majority against the least election opposition leader in 60 years. That >>>>>> costings hole.

    BTW, what’s your fascination with poop? You mention it often.

  27. I am not sure how I would describe my mood – this has been an election like no other. I go to sleep with a mix of elation and doom cleverly interwoven in a compelling sort of tribal pattern that in many centuries from now will be inexplicable to anthropologists. Good night.

  34. Frank

    Should we pick on Trithy tonight – he has had a rather large shock – is iit right to kick them wile they’re down

    oh fu.. it what am I thinking

    KICK

  35. And voice of (you can’t spell truth) @3526 It is called the first time the Coalition government is exposed as the serious second rate economics managers that they really are. Look we know you are in shock – there is an organisation on hand to help -“Right Wing of the Dove” 🙂 We are here to help!

  40. Im loling at the prospects of a frontpage Australian article about the threat of the Greens, while everyone else lays it straight with “liberal election lies”.

  44. I’m going to take my ball and go home. I’ll be back to gloat when Abbott gets into office. It will be extra sweet when you clowns feel extra deep despair after this excitement.

    Enjoy your scat fetish Mr. Calabrese.

  45. [One might almost think (touch wood) that Julia and the undies anticipated this outcome and have been contemplating it impact…]

    I suspect, yes they might have … 🙂

    When asked in the Presser some days back, Julia said that she wouldn’t see or release the Coalition’s figures, but then she specifically added that what Oakshott, Katter or Windsor chose to do with the figures was a matter for them.

  46. I am waiting for a certain someone to come on here and make a long tirade about how today’s events actually reflect how horrible Gillard is and how badly Labor has lost its way…

  48. voice o ftruth@3543

    I’m going to take my ball and go home. I’ll be back to gloat when Abbott gets into office. It will be extra sweet when you clowns feel extra deep despair after this excitement.

    Enjoy your scat fetish Mr. Calabrese.

    Famous last words Truthy.

    Egg Meet Face 🙂

    Oh and stock up on Snuggler Nappies – you’ll need them. 🙂

  49. Punna @ 3518
    [someone posted earlier today that Katter had been saying that Swan is World’s Greatest Treasurer or wtte.

    any links?]

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/key-independent-mps-katter-windsor-and-oakeshott-may-not-decide-until-tuesday/story-fn59niix-1225912663632

    [Mr Katter said the former Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd, a fellow Queenslander with whom he shared a good relationship, had done some good things. He also praised Treasurer Wayne Swan.

    But he warned that Julia Gillard, who yesterday signalled she would not wind back Labor’s historic tariff reforms despite Mr Katter’s opposition, needed to prove herself.

    Mr Katter said the “stupid” 10 commandments attitude that both parties had taken to free market policies needed to change.]

  50. For those who came in late

    [The Treasury says there is a hole of up to $11 billion in the Coalition’s costings of its election promises.

    Independent MPs Rob Oakeshott, Tony Windsor and Bob Katter have received Treasury briefings on the budget impacts of the election promises made by both the Coalition and Labor.

    While the Coalition says its promises would add $11.47 billion to the Budget’s bottom line over four years, a Treasury document released to the independent MPs shows it could be less than $1 billion.

    One of the independents, Tony Windsor, says Opposition Leader Tony Abbott needs to explain.

    “There’s some questions that the Coalition will need to answer in terms of the magnitude of the black hole in their promises and funding arrangements,” he said.

    “And the Coalition commitments at the election – there’s something like an $11 billion black hole under Treasury assessments.

    Mr Windsor says the Treasury analysis probably explains why Mr Abbott was cagey with his figures.

    “We probably understand now why he wasn’t interested in releasing the numbers and so I think we all await an explanation of where these significant differences are in terms of interpretation,” he said.

    The Opposition has released a statement saying its costings do add up.

    Mr Windsor says Labor’s election promises were pretty much on target.]

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 71 of 73
1 … 70 71 72 73