A pound of flesh

Well inside his first 100 days, President Trump is facing a revolt from his core constituency. Trump promised a number of ‘initiatives’, from ‘draining the swamp’ (a reference to the political class in Washington DC), to building a wall to keep Mexicans in Mexico and repealing Obamacare, more formally called the ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’, a program implemented by the Obama Administration to ensure health care was affordable for Americans who were not on large incomes.

Trump’s problem is that it sounded like a good rallying point to suggest that Obamacare was unaffordable, a waste of resources and a complete disaster. As Paul McGeough observes in Fairfax’s websites:
Until now being President has been easy-peasy for Trump – keeping his base happy by snarling at the news media, offering a new "he tapped my phones" conspiracy to replace the Obama birther nonsense, firing off another executive order on migration when the first backfired, and shirt-fronting the world on trade and security.
Trump’s Presidency just got harder.
The self-proclaimed dealmaker is attempting a sleight of hand, by which millions of his own voters stand to be screwed. More than 80 per cent of them told election day exit pollsters that Obamacare had "gone too far", but experts warn that under Trump's proposed deal they will be slugged for thousands of dollars more a year.

And at the same time, Trump must convince dozens of small government purists in Congress that what is being foisted on them, dubbed Obamacare-lite by some, is not a halfway house that fails to deliver on their absolute commitment to be rid of Barack Obama's legacy-defining health insurance scheme.
McGeough goes on to quote a number of the 90% of Trump voters (those who earn less than USD200,000 per annum) who will be worse off. Trump is now finding out it is all very well to claim that on the whole, a country would be better off if one course of action rather than another was taken, but the reality is in Trump’s case, he implied that every American citizen would have all their problems fixed if they voted him in. We’ve discussed this before on The Political Sword:
Trump has by implication promised to ‘fix’ the perceived personal problem of every person that has voted for him, as well as those who didn’t. It really doesn’t matter that there are a multitude of problems and, given all the good will in the world, some of the problems are so entrenched in the global economic system that they will never be ‘fixed’, Trump’s implicit promise is to ‘fix it’ and benefit all those US citizens who voted for him. When it comes time for other Republicans to challenge him for the 2020 nomination sometime in 2019, a lot of the disaffected that voted for Trump this time around will look at their individual circumstances and decide whether they are either worse or no better off. While Trump may not necessarily follow the usual political protocols, he can’t ‘fix’ everything he claimed to be able to manage in under 24 months. He is already ‘talking down’ his promise to cancel Obama’s Affordable Health initiative. Will these people (probably numbered in the hundreds of millions) accept Trump’s inevitable line that he is gradually turning things around? Or will they, to paraphrase a former Australian politician be waiting on the porch with a baseball bat?
And that’s the problem when you play with people’s perceptions. Your perception probably differs greatly from mine on certain issues – and ‘fixing’ an issue to your satisfaction means that I probably won’t be happy with the result. Depending on the importance of the ‘fix’ in our daily lives (maybe financial, social or educational disadvantage), one of us is likely to withdraw our support and to be figuratively, at least, standing on the verandah with the cricket bat waiting for the perceived wrong doer to come by. As The New Yorker recently stated:
The thing always to remember about Trump—and this week has merely confirmed it—is that he is a sham populist. A sham authoritarian populist, even.

Going back to late-nineteenth-century Germany, many of the most successful authoritarian populists have expanded the social safety net. Otto von Bismarck, the first Chancellor, introduced health insurance, accident insurance, and old-age pensions. “The actual complaint of the worker is the insecurity of his existence,” he said in 1884. “He is unsure if he will always have work, he is unsure if he will always be healthy, and he can predict that he will reach old age and be unable to work.”

During the twentieth century, Argentina’s Juan Perón, Malaysia’s Tunku Abdul Rahman, and Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew were among the authoritarian leaders who followed Bismarck’s example. Today, if you look at the election platform of Marine Le Pen, the leader of the French National Front, you see something similar. Like Trump, Le Pen is a nativist, a protectionist, and an Islamophobe. But she is not proposing to dismantle any of the many social benefits that the French state provides. Rather, she says she will expand child-support payments and reduce the retirement age to sixty.

Trump, on the other hand, has little to offer ordinary Americans except protectionist rhetoric and anti-immigrant measures. Before moving to gut Obamacare, he at least could have tried to bolster his populist credentials by passing a job-creating infrastructure bill or a middle-class tax cut. Instead, he’s staked his Presidency on a proposal that would hurt many of his supporters, slash Medicaid, undermine the finances of Medicare, and benefit the donor class. That’s not populism: it’s the reverse of it. And it might be a political disaster in the making.
Politics is political and never has the ancient saying ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ been more current than today. As an example, in the recent Western Australian state election, Liberal Premier Colin Barnett was dismissing a preference deal with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation as recently as November 2016 and by February 2017, was claiming the subsequent deal to swap preferences with One Nation above long term allies the National Party as a ‘sensible and pragmatic result’. Barnett also admitted in a radio interview he was personally ‘uncomfortable’ with the preference deal with One Nation but said he accepted the party was now ‘a reality’.

Hanson’s comments after the WA election were interesting as well. She admitted the preference swap was a bad idea:
“Doing the deal with the Libs has done damage to us, in all honesty. It was a mistake,” Hanson said. “We are really going to have to have a good look at this because all I heard all day leading up to this election was ‘why are you sending your preferences to the Liberal party?’”

Hanson suggested the problem stemmed from doing a deal with a major party leader past his use by date. “It wasn’t One Nation. I think it was Colin Barnett – people did not want Colin Barnett.
As well as blaming the ALP for her party’s poor showing, Hanson blames ‘the people’ for not understanding the system:
People ask me about preferences and they don't understand the voting system, the preference system, and the preferences. I think that's where most of the damage has come from.
Writing for Fairfax’s websites on the Monday after the election, Peter Hartcher suggested that Hanson has ‘lost the plot’. His argument is:
Unshakeable faith in the common sense of the ordinary people is the very definition of populism. Hanson, under pressure of failure, has lost the plot.

What happened?

First and foremost, One Nation forgot its essential character as a protest party.

Its entire raison d'etre is to register a protest vote against the main parties, to express the people's disgust at the political establishment.

Instead, One Nation did a deal with one of the main parties. Worse, it was with the ruling party. It made Pauline Hanson look like a close partner of the establishment.

Why on earth did One Nation agree to swap preferences with the Liberals, the party of Premier Colin Barnett?

Simple. It was a lunge for power. One Nation wanted more spillover preference votes, even if they came from the devil himself.

The party sold its soul for power. But it was far worse than a standard Faustian bargain. One Nation sold its soul, yet didn't win any temporary advantage. It ended up powerless as well as soulless.
While short term political expediency has a place (maybe), it certainly didn’t help Barnett retain government or Hanson gain influence. Any deal is a contract between two parties whereby both parties get something they want. As the WA Liberals lost power, any deal they made for power sharing is probably over; a good thing for whoever replaces Barnett. It’s not only Trump, Hanson or the WA Liberals that play Russian roulette with political expediency and populism. Last October, Crikey discussed the potential connection between political donations and renewable energy policy. In the discussion, Bernard Keane suggested:
Malcolm Turnbull says he has lots of solar panels. But the Coalition's hatred of renewable energy isn't so much about personal views as about the cash.
It was probably not a surprise when you clicked on the link to the Crikey article above to see that the conservative parties in Australia received far more donations over the past decade or so from energy and coal companies than the ALP. While it is attractive to suggest that no big business should be donating to political parties, there is nothing illegal with the process at the moment. The energy and coal companies would also want their pound of flesh from the politicians, and it’s probably not hard to guess what the preferred outcome would be.

The average solar system in Australia can generate 5kW according to Infinite Energy, a commercial solar installer with offices in Perth and Brisbane. Turnbull’s Point Piper home can generate 14.5kW of electricity with some battery storage ability. However, Turnbull sprukes the ‘advantages’ of ‘clean coal’ over renewable energy claiming the issue with variable renewables – by which I mean principally solar and wind – is that they don’t generate electricity all the time.

Clean coal is a myth both economically and practically. Fairfax media reported in early February:
An analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance released on Friday found this type of plant was the most expensive and dirtiest source of mainstream electricity supply available.

Across their lifetime, the most efficient modern coal plants would cost a minimum $134 per megawatt hour of electricity generated, and possibly as much as $203.

Wind ($61-118 per megawatt hour), baseload gas ($74-90) and large-scale solar ($78-140) were much cheaper.

The analysis found the cost of building new coal could fall to $94 per megawatt hour if the government were to take on all risk across its decades-long lifespan.
It could be suggested that the donors to the conservative parties are getting their pound of flesh.

When recent headlines suggest that ‘Climate change in Australia impact on Australia may be irreversible, five yearly report says’ and ‘Economic growth more likely when wealth distributed to poor instead of rich’, you’d have to ask if Turnbull, like Abbott before him, should join with Hanson and Trump as (in the words of The New Yorker) ‘sham populists’. While they seek the popularity, they all support tax cuts to big business and those on larger incomes, xenophobic immigration policies, cutting of wages (through mechanisms such as reduction in weekend penalty rates), support to political donors that arguably jeopardises the future of our country and so on. Turnbull’s polling figures reflect general dissatisfaction and Hanson potentially revealed her true colours when she did a ‘preference deal’ with the moribund Barnett Liberal Government in Western Australia and paid the price for that decision.

Putting it bluntly, it’s Turnbull, Hanson and Trump’s fault that they are in the position they are. Hopefully these examples will in time convince future politicians that a conversation on the pros and cons of matters affecting our society is required – rather than sham populism.

What do you think?
Let us know in comments below.

Recent Posts
Climate change, power and coal
2353NM, 2 March 2017
You may have noticed it’s been a bit hot lately. In fact, if you were born after 1985, you have never experienced a cooler than average month. Let’s just read that again so it really sinks in – if you were born after 1985, you have never experienced …
Thirty pieces of silver
Ad astra, 5 March 2017
Disappointment, disillusionment, disgust, desperation, desolation, despondency, and above all simmering anger - these are the emotions so many Australians have had, and still are experiencing when they reflect on Malcolm Turnbull’s period as prime minister …
Twenty Twenty-Four – our Orwellian destiny?
Ad astra, 12 March 2017
Have you ever felt overtaken by the velocity of world events? Have your ever felt overwhelmed by the pace of change? Have you ever wondered what the world will be like in Twenty Twenty-Four, forty years after George Orwell’s …

Jesus wept

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse continues. In the past couple of weeks, the Commissioners have been hearing evidence from Catholic clergy. Some of the numbers are scary:
In total, between 1980 and 2015, 4,444 people alleged incidents of child sexual abuse relating to 93 Catholic Church authorities. The abuse allegedly took place in more than 1,000 institutions. The average age of victims was 10.5 for girls and 11.6 for boys. The overwhelming majority of survivors were male. Almost 1,900 perpetrators were identified and another 500 remained unidentified. Thirty-two per cent were religious brothers, 30% were priests, 29% were lay people and 5% were religious sisters.

The royal commission said 37% of all private sessions it held with survivors from all institutions related to abuse in the Catholic Church.
The Church rightly stands condemned for allowing the abuse to occur with seemingly little or no consequence to the perpetrators. The Royal Commission is hearing evidence that suggests that canon law (the law of the Catholic Church) forbids reporting, that vows of celibacy are not to blame, and that the Church doesn’t understand the depth of the problem their senior clergy (management) has ignored.

Clergy in the Catholic Church are not solely at fault here, Anglicans, Salvation Army, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other religions, as well as other organisations such as the defence force and educational facilities are also implicated. No doubt the Commission will make some recommendations and due process will take its course. Those that are found to have offended according to the laws of the land will serve their punishment and one would hope that the process does give some closure and benefit to those people who were the victims of these horrific crimes.

Apart from the need to get to the bottom of institutional abuse of children, the Royal Commission is a demonstration of the axiom that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is probably fair to suggest that in all the cases above, the priest/minister was in a position of power over those whom they abused. If the parents of the children were told about the problem, they too were probably in a vulnerable position where they were torn by their belief in what their children were telling them versus their belief that the morals and ethics of the religious or other association conducting character checks of their representatives were sound.

The point here is that most religious teachers and those in positions of power over the young and vulnerable perform their role exceptionally well and regardless of your personal opinion on religion, there are countless examples of good work for the community done by those who follow various religions, such as health care, family support, childcare, education, visitation to the old and infirm, assistance to those who are homeless and so on. We shouldn’t assume that the deeds of a few reflect in any way the deeds of many. It is less certain that we shouldn’t be asking why the senior members of the organisation (the management for want of a better word) have been less that ethical with their dealings to eliminate the risk to children from predators within the organisation.

It’s another example of power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Why else would Catholic Bishops transfer clergy who had been found to be preying on young children to other areas rather than report the crime to the authorities? Surely there would have been someone with the morals and ethics who suggested at the time while the transfer would hide the problem for some time, eventually there would be hell to pay (pun intended).

And so, it has come to pass. The highest-ranking member of the Catholic Clergy, Cardinal George Pell has refused (on health grounds) to return to Australia to attend the Royal Commission and may be charged with some crimes. Others too seem to have less morals and ethics than the standards they preach; others will probably also be charged. In a number of the senses of the phrase, Jesus wept seems accurate.

It is an unfortunate reality that the Royal Commission is necessary. Hopefully an exploration of the systemic failures of a number of organisations that ‘turned a blind eye’ or thought some other inappropriate management practices would make the problem disappear, will be effective in the elimination of similar practices in the future. We all have to remember that the majority of those who are members of organisations that are subject to the investigations of the Royal Commission are just as horrified as we are? They deserve better.

What do you think?
Let us know in comments below.

Contact numbers if this article has created concerns for you or someone you know:
Royal Commission into the Institutional Response to Child Sexual Abuse - 1800 099 340
Lifeline -13 11 14

Recent Posts
Computer says ‘no’
2353NM, 29 January 2017
Once upon a time, someone came up with an economic theory that robbery was good for the economy. The theory was along the lines that the robbers get some extra cash and most of it will reappear in the economy at some point soon after the robbery; the bank or shop is insured for the loss so it gets …
Selfishness is political poison
Ad astra, 5 February 2017
Amid the contemporary chaos of national and international politics do you wonder what's behind it all?

Is there a common factor that might explain our own federal government’s failures, its incompetence, and its appalling behaviour? …
Alternative facts and transparency
2353NM, 12 February 2017
Would you believe that I am a 25 year old self-made millionaire and spend my life travelling around the world — only if I can fly in an Etihad A380 equipped with “The Residence” three room suite (only plebs travel First Class apparently!). !). I also have bankers beating a …

The standard you walk past . . .

Lieutenant General David Morrison AO gave the speech above in 2013 when it came to light that members of the Australian Army were alleged to be guilty of inappropriate behaviour to those of lesser rank and/or female. There are a couple of clear messages in the speech – firstly, his message to those that believe that his lack of tolerance of inappropriate behaviour is wrong; if it does not suit you - get out. Secondly he correctly states that the standard of behaviour you walk past is the standard you accept.

In the last week, Australians have been subject to #censusfail and release of 2,000 cases of abuse of people held in detention centres on behalf of the Australian Government. So which one gets the media coverage – unbelievably the #censusfail! At some point there will be an enquiry into the census issues, the enquiry will probably consider going back to the paper census next time – if not this time (although the website was up as this was being prepared) and the world will move on. Data from the census will be used to plan for future infrastructure (assuming the current Government can get over it’s ‘balanced budget’ hyperbole and develop a policy for the future at some stage in the next year) and if a significant number of people have lied because of privacy concerns, they and unfortunately those around them will suffer as a result. In addition, privacy concerns with the census are not new as this Sydney Morning Herald article from June 1966 attests.

The issue really is s Michael Koziel states in The Age; This country cares more about a computer cockup than the abuse of refugees And before you say no it wasn’t me, you are one of the people that employs the Australian Government. So you are implicated and to repeat Morrison’s words ‘the standard of behaviour you walk past is the standard you accept’.

It would be very easy to get up on a soapbox, point the finger of blame at the current Government in general and Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton as Immigration Ministers in particular as, since 2013, these two shameless politicians have given a lot of ammunition to take the easy option – including Dutton’s masterstroke from last Thursday

He said: “I won’t tolerate any sexual abuse whatsoever. But I have been made aware of some incidents that have been reported, false allegations of sexual assault, because in the end people have paid money to people smugglers and they want to come to our country.

“Some people have even gone to the extent of self-harming and people have self-immolated in an effort to get to Australia, and certainly some have made false allegations in an attempt to get to Australia.”
To demonstrate that Dutton just doesn’t get it; when Leigh Sales on ABCTV’s 7.30 suggested that
. . . the facility was turning into a “Guantánamo Bay-style situation”.

Dutton said: “No, and with respect I think that’s a ridiculous analogy. I think the situation is that people have paid people smugglers for a migration outcome, they want to come to Australia.”

“It’s turning into a situation where people are making a choice that they don’t want to go back to their country of origin in cases where we’re offering thousands, literally thousands and thousands of dollars for people to return to their country of origin, to provide support.”
With respect Minister, this isn’t about people smugglers, who ironically would be your core constituency of small business operators if they were Australian. This is about people that you and your predecessors have illegally (in the case of PNG) moved people to a foreign country, mistreated them and then deny that it is happening. The difference with the actions of the US in Guantánamo Bay is that they abused adults – you are allowing the staff of Australian contractors to abuse children and women who have done nothing wrong except attempt to better their lives.

New South Wales is going through the process of banning Greyhound racing because of widespread and systemic mistreatment of animals, yet Dutton sees nothing wrong in this country’s treatment of people on Nauru. Despite the wishes of the Northern Territory Government, the Federal Government quickly and correctly instituted an enquiry into abuse of children at the Don Dale Facility in Darwin, (admittedly when the issue received significant media coverage) with Turnbull saying
“We will get to the bottom of this swiftly and we will identify the lessons that need to be learned,” Mr Turnbull said.

“We have here a very troubling state of affairs where clearly there has been mistreatment of young people.”

“We need to to expose the cultural problems, the administrative problems that allowed this type of mistreatment to occur,”
Turnbull is concerned about the ‘mistreatment of young people’ incarcerated in the Northern Territory yet The Guardian reports
The Guardian’s analysis of the files reveal that children are vastly over-represented in the reports. More than half of the 2,116 reports – a total of 1,086 incidents, or 51.3% – involve children, although children made up only about 18% of those in detention on Nauru during the time covered by the reports, May 2013 to October 2015. The findings come just weeks after the brutal treatment of young people in juvenile detention in the Northern Territory was exposed, leading to the Australian prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, announcing a wide-ranging public inquiry.
And the Prime Minister and ‘responsible Minister’ claim there are some false reports. Bottom line – IT DOESN’T BLOODY MATTER if some have claimed abuse falsely. If one person has genuinely claimed abuse – it is too many and The Guardian has records of TWO THOUSAND claims. Are Turnbull and Dutton seriously asking us (their ultimate employers) to believe that there are no genuine and two thousand false claims of abuse from a detention camp set up under Australian auspices? It beggars belief.The standard of behaviour you walk past is the standard you accept and by the way, the ‘look over there’ defence in this case is disgusting as well as disingenuous.

Detention Camps go back as far as the Keating years. While initially they were on Australian soil, Howard changed the rules to ensure that refugees couldn’t get to “Australian soil” event though they landed on Australian territory. The Rudd and Gillard government and all who served in them (including Bill Shorten and most of his shadow cabinet) are equally as guilty as Turnbull, Dutton and Scott Morrison as well as the rest of the Coalition of walking past something that any person with even a small amount of morals and ethics should have stopped years ago.

How do we fix this? Refugees are permitted to claim refugee status anywhere they like. It is in the UN Refugee Convention of 1951 which the Australian Government of the day (lead by the Liberal Party’s founder Robert Menzies) signed on our behalf. It is a complete and utter fallacy that there is a queue of refugees, that they are planning to overthrow the elected Government of this country (although if Turnbull and Dutton are the standard we accept, it may not be a bad idea) and the cost you and I am paying out to abuse people we should be protecting is $1.2 billion per annum .

According to this 2013 News Corp article , in 2010/11, 93.5% of refugees arriving by boat were found to be genuine refugees and the figure for 2011/12 it was 91%. Out of interest, more refugees arrive by plane (something like 32 times the number attempting to enter the country by boat). Those that arrive by plane and then claim to be refugees are almost twice as likely to be rejected. Those that arrive by plane are released into the community rather than being sent to Manus or Nauru. So we don’t even treat refugees equally.

So Dutton – instead of abusing refugees that arrive by boat, how about you close down the detention camps (as required by the PNG High Court), bring the people to Australia and process them quickly. Then commence the treatment required to restore their physical and mental health to an acceptable standard – Australia created the majority of problems due to incarceration on Nauru and Manus Island, Australia should fix them. It should be a bi-partisan move as Shorten’s Labor Party is just as culpable here. The Australian Government has $1.2 Billion per annum to do it with. 'The standard of behaviour you walk past is the standard you accept’. Should you choose to send the link or a copy of this article to your local Coalition or ALP MP I would support your decision. While you are there, ask him or her what they are doing today to fix this national shame – and when the ‘form’ letter comes back – respond that the form letter is not good enough.

With a bit of luck, if refugees are processed quickly, on shore with the physical and mental assistance required to overcome the trauma initiated by Australian action – Dutton and Turnbull might be able to find the $60 million per annum pulled from the Australian Bureau of Statistics budget in 2014 by Abbott and his cronies (who are also culpable for the human disaster on Manus and Nauru). With the $60 million restored, perhaps the ABS won’t be forced to comprimise on their valuable work (including the next Census) and the Government could fund appropriate education and health services for all Australians.

‘The standard of behaviour you walk past is the standard you accept.'

What do you think?
Let us know in comments below.

Recent Posts
Why are Abbott’s conservatives destroying our PM?
Ad Astra, 10 August 2016
To those of you who dispute the assertion embedded in the title, let me provide you with supporting evidence. Some questions for you to answer: Is Malcolm Turnbull the man you thought he was when he rolled Tony Abbott almost a year ago? Has he fulfilled your initial expectations? Is he as secure in his position as PM as he was initially? Has he been limply acting as a proxy for Abbott and his policies? More...
The democratisation of opinion
Ken Wolff, 7 August 2016
With the rise of the internet and social media almost anyone can express their opinion to an audience in the thousands, even hundreds of thousands, no longer just to a circle of people who are physically present to hear the opinion. While that provides the democratisation of opinion, it also has a more sinister side. It has led to a widespread view that in this new democratic world all opinions are equally valid.
Make laugh – not war
2353NM, 3 August 2016
A couple of weeks ago, our esteemed blogmaster Ad Astra published a piece asking Why is there so much anger? It’s a good question. Sociologists will tell us that whatever position a person takes on a particular subject, there will be some who agree, some who disagree and some who don’t have a strong opinion either way; they’re ‘sitting on the fence’. Some of those who disagree would listen to an argument designed to change their mind; for others, successfully changing their viewpoint would be impossible.

The election in numbers

We know the Liberals lost 13 seats, or in other words Labor gained 13 seats, with one seat, Herbert, still in the balance at the time of writing. (Labor actually won 14 but gave one back which I will come to later.) The Liberals claimed a win because they did at least manage to hang on to government, thanks to the Nationals, and Labor claimed success because of the number of seats it gained. But can either party really claim success? The numbers suggest not. The numbers also suggest that individual seats varied markedly and there was not anything like a uniform swing to Labor although swing there was overall.

This is only for the House of Representatives and the numbers I have used are not the final numbers but are from the count a day either side of 13 July, so further changes will be only fractions of a percentage and make little difference to my overall conclusions, although it is the Labor vote that is reducing percentage-wise as the postal votes are finalised. All the numbers are from, or derived from, the AEC’s Virtual Tally Room.

Overall Labor gained a swing of about 3.1% on the two party preferred (2PP) count but it gained only 1.4% on its first preference vote to about 35%.

The Liberals lost 3.4% on its first preference vote, receiving only 28.6% of first preferences, and the multiplicity of groups making up the National side of the Coalition, the Nationals themselves, the LNP in Queensland and the Country Liberals in the NT, remained static — the Nationals gaining 0.39% but the LNP losing 0.32% and the CL losing 0.07% (and their only seat) for no nett gain. The National side of the Coalition, however, accounted in total for about 32% of the Coalition’s first preference vote and its vote was also equal to about half of the Liberal first preference vote. They are now providing 31 of the Coalition’s 76 seats (or roughly 40%). So the Nationals’ argument for a greater say in the Coalition has merit.

The Nationals and the LNP each hold six very safe seats with a 2PP vote above 60%. Since the Nationals only hold 10 seats in their own right, that is a high proportion of very safe seats, whereas for the LNP in Queensland it is out of a total of 21 seats. The Liberals hold 20 such seats, for a Coalition total of 32 very safe seats. The ALP has 25 such seats, with 9 above 65% — the Liberals have 8 seats above 65%, the Nationals 3, and the LNP 2. Obviously such seats will rarely change hands unless there are major changes to the electoral boundaries or in the make-up of the population.

As is to be expected from the overall result the Coalition parties lost first preference votes in 114 seats — an overall average of -2.7% and a median of -3.7%. People may like to know that the worst result for the Liberals, -17.3%, was in the seat of Indi: even in the seat of Mayo, gained by the NXT, the loss was slightly lower at -16%. They also lost on the 2PP count in 119 seats (although in 12 seats it was less than 1%). So although the Coalition has just managed to achieve a majority government, the fact that it lost votes in almost 80% of electorates suggests it can hardly be taken as a ringing endorsement of the government or its policies.

Some of the swing to Labor was wasted in seats which it had no chance of winning or in its own safe seats. It gained 2PP swings of more than 3% in 12 seats in which the Coalition vote was above 55% (even after the swing). And it also gained swings above 3% in 29 of its own seats where its vote ended up above 55%. So in 41 seats, over a quarter of all seats in the House of Representatives, Labor’s gains did nothing to change the outcome in terms of seat numbers and it could be said to have been most successful in its own seats, basically winning back some of the Labor-leaning voters that it lost in 2013 — overall, Labor improved its first preference vote in 43 of its own seats and its 2PP in 49. (There were 10 seats in which Labor was not involved in the final two candidate battle, so Labor 2PP is not readily available for those seats.)

Labor cannot be complacent about its vote. Although it gained overall it actually had a reduced first preference vote in 50 seats (11 less than 1%) but that reduced to a smaller 2PP vote in 20 seats (5 less than 1%). It lost first preference votes in 23 Liberal held seats, 5 LNP seats in Queensland, and 5 National seats (and in 4 seats won by minor parties or independents). It also had a reduced 2PP in 9 Liberal seats, 3 LNP seats and 1 National seat.

More worryingly, Labor lost first preference votes in 13 of its own seats, five in Victoria, one in NSW, two in Queensland, four in SA and one in WA — One Nation or NXT were involved in six of those seats which drew votes from both major parties. The Greens were present in every seat and received more than 10% of first preference votes in five of the seats in which Labor lost first preference votes but that is not an explanation because Labor also gained in many seats where the Greens vote exceeded 10%.

It managed to reduce that to losses in only five of its own seats on 2PP and one of those still remained above 55%. That is where the Green vote benefits Labor, in both Labor and Coalition seats, with about 80% of its preferences flowing to Labor. The Greens, however, are a Left-of-centre party, as is Labor, and it is surprising that as many as a fifth of Green voters direct their preferences to the Right. While there are explanations for that, it is an issue for Labor.

The Greens had a first preference vote above 15% in 17 seats but 11 of those were Labor seats and the Greens held one in their own right. Of the five Coalition seats three were safe for the Coalition, Labor gained one and failed to gain one in which it thought it had a chance (Corangamite in Victoria). So that level of support for the Greens, and preferences flowing to Labor, does not translate into Labor gaining a significant number of Coalition seats. The Greens tend to do better in Labor seats (obviously Left-leaning electorates) which is not beneficial in terms of achieving a Left-of-centre government.

At a state level, the NXT vote in SA had a major impact with Labor losing first preference votes in all but one of SA’s 11 seats — but increasing its 2PP vote in every seat. At the other end of the spectrum, it gained in four of the five Tasmanian seats and lost ground on its first preference and 2PP vote only against Andrew Wilkie in Denison.

In WA Labor lost first preference votes in four of the 16 electorates, including one of its own, but lost 2PP in only one, a very safe Liberal seat (above 65%).

In the larger states, Labor lost first preference votes in 11 of the 47 seats in NSW but lost 2PP in only four, each safe Coalition seats. On the other hand, NSW was also the state where Labor improved its first preference vote by more than 4% in 19 seats, including six that it won.

In Queensland Labor lost first preferences in seven of 30 seats and 2PP in four seats. It improved its first preference vote by more than 4% in only four seats, one of which it won (Longman).

Victoria was the state in which the Labor vote suffered most but that was off relatively high levels at the 2013 election, when it had 12 seats above 55% and 9 of those above 60% on 2PP. This year it lost first preference votes in 17 of the 37 seats including five of its own. That reduced to 2PP losses in 10 seats including four of its own but in two of those seats the loss was against a Green candidate. It did improve its first preference vote by more than 4% in seven seats but six of those were its own seats and the other a safe Liberal seat (61% of 2PP at the 2013 election and still slightly over 56% at this election) so had no impact on the election result.

Victoria was the state where Labor suffered its only loss — the seat of Chisolm from which Anna Burke retired at this election. Labor received 37.3% of the first preference ‘ordinary’ votes (at the ballot box) compared with the Liberal candidate’s 44.7%. The Greens received 12.1%. While the majority of the Green preferences would have flowed to Labor, putting Labor slightly ahead, the Liberal candidate also benefitted from preferences from the Family First Party (2.3% of ordinary votes) and Rise Up Australia (1.9%). The Liberal candidate, however, received 51.6% of about 13,000 postal vote first preferences compared to Labor’s 32.4% — on 2PP that translated to 58.1% of postal votes for the Liberals and only 41.9% for Labor. If Labor had held the seat it could have reached 70 seats in the House of Representatives and held the government to 75 (if Labor wins Herbert, or 69 and 76 respectively if it does not). There will no doubt be much soul-searching within the Labor party about this loss.

As Chisolm and Labor’s loss of first preference votes in a third of electorates indicates, there was much variation. Even where Labor did well, for example in NSW, its improved first preference vote varied from 0.7% to 13.9%. For such wide variations, it obviously becomes necessary to examine what was occurring in each seat, which is well beyond the scope of this article.

The other candidates in an electorate obviously have a significant influence, as with the role of NXT and One Nation in drawing votes away from the major parties. Local issues, like the CFA dispute in Victoria, can also have an influence, as does the perceived quality of the candidates. And it is of more than passing interest that Labor did well in the states that have a Liberal state government — NSW, Tasmania and WA.

So on the numbers it could be said that the election did not produce a clear winner. Although the Coalition scraped over the line, it lost votes in about 80% of electorates indicating the increased numbers who were rejecting the government and its policies. Labor, however, also achieved mixed results, losing votes in a third of seats and relying on third party preferences to improve its position. On that basis, both major parties have a lot of work to do to convince voters they deserve their vote.

What do you think?
Does the media pay too much attention to national trends when it appears elections are influenced just as much by local concerns and local candidates?

Were the minor parties and independents the real winners at the election?

Is a Left coalition of Labor and the Greens necessary to counter the coalition of the Right?

Let us know in comments below.

Recent Posts
Just do your job
2353NM, 13 July 2016
Fairfax media’s Matthew Knott asked the other day ‘Election 2016: The uncomfortable truth is the media got it wrong. How did we do it’. It’s a good question.

Knott details issues such as the polls showing split results for months prior to the election yet the betting agencies supporting the view that the Coalition would romp it in on 2 July; …
Australia; we need to have a conversation
2353NM, 15 July 2016
There are three types of people in this world, those who make things happen, those who watch things happen and those who wonder what happened. – Mary Kay Ash

Mary Kay Ash, the founder of Mary Kay Cosmetics …
The Liberals are dreaming
Ken Wolff, 17 July 2016
On Sunday morning 10 July, before Shorten conceded defeat in the election, Arthur Sinodinos appeared on the ABC’s Insiders. He claimed the Coalition had a ‘mandate’ for its 2016 budget and its company tax cuts. Sinodinos’s view takes no account of the reality of the new parliament.

Although the final count is not yet complete, it appears the LNP will win 76 or 77 …