State polls with ‘federal implications’? Time to kill the myth
Time to kill another myth: “federal implications”.
I won’t reel off every journalist and politician who has insisted there are “federal implications” to the Western Australian state election, either directly using that phrase or otherwise opining on its meaning. I don’t need to. We now live in a political culture where professional journalists seriously discussed the “federal implications” of a state by-election in New South Wales in 2010.
What do “federal implications” actually mean? This is where it gets tricky. Does it mean voters are likely to vote the same way federally as they have previously at state level, so a state result is an accurate gauge of a federal election occurring shortly afterwards? What about “state implications”? Do voters vote the same way at state level as they have federally? National political journalists generally don’t bother with “state implications”, but there’s no reason why, once you assume voters are unable or unwilling to distinguish between state and federal issues, it shouldn’t run both ways.
And is it the be-all and end-all of voter choice? If the Labor brand is “toxic”, how important is that as a factor determining votes? Is it a dominant factor in determining vote, or just a nebulous addition to other factors like economic management? And what about candidates who defy voting trends through strong local work?
So let’s put it to the test. What evidence is there that voters regularly vote the same way federally as they vote at state level — or vice versa?
There were two state elections before the federal election in 2010, held in South Australia and Tasmania, five months before the August election, i.e. closer than the WA election to the federal election this year. In neither case did the performance of the major parties match their performance in those states at the subsequent federal election: in South Australia in the state election, Labor suffered a huge 7%+ swing in the lower house, which went directly to the Liberals. At the federal election five months later, both Labor and the Liberals suffered swings against them in the House of Reps, with the Greens, who’d only picked up 1.6% at the state election, benefitting from it. And in the Tasmanian election, Labor suffered a big swing, most of which went to the Liberals, but at the federal election the Liberals suffered a big swing against them, with Labor picking up votes; the Greens also picked up a swing, but somewhat less than at the state election.
If you look at the Victorian election held three months after the federal election, state Labor suffered a big swing in the lower house and lost government; the Liberals, the Nationals and the Greens all picked up swings. But three months earlier, both major parties suffered swings against them and, as in South Australia, it went to the Greens.
But the “state implications” idea works better for the NSW election in March 2011, admittedly many months after the federal election, but the swing against Labor and to the Liberals in NSW at the federal level was magnified at the state election.
“Out of 11 state or territory election held adjacent to federal polls since 1998, only three had similar results in terms of swings.”
What about in 2007? There was a NSW election in March that year, a long time before the November federal poll. The Liberals picked up a small swing from Labor at that poll, not enough to defeat Morris Iemma. Of course, in November there was a big swing to Labor in NSW under Kevin Rudd.
The 2004 election? We can test the “state implications” thesis in WA, where an election was held in February, not long after John Howard won his final term. At the 2004 federal poll, WA voters had swung hard to the Liberals, with a swing of over 6% in the House of Reps, partly from Labor but also because One Nation had imploded. But in February, West Australians returned Geoff Gallop for a second term with a swing of over 5%; the Liberals picked up a swing from the One Nation vote, too, of 4%. But the Greens, oddly, went slightly backward at state level after picking up votes in the House of Reps federally.
Page 1 of 2 | Next page
Categories: ACT, Federal, NSW, Qld, SA, TAS, VIC, WA
Good analysis. I agree Federal Labor is in trouble. It would be easy to blame the media bias for this situation but I believe Labor stratigists have been asleep at the wheel. I thought it was obvious quite some time ago that the Libs stratagy was to first weaken the government with a continuous barage of negativity of the government policies, then closer to the election they would reinvent Abbott as mr nice guy.
Labor just largely ignored the barage saying they are getting on with the job of running the country. They should have been trashing the Libs at every opportunity. Of course this whole idea of pleasant politics was started by Rudd which was a nice idea but not the way to fight a monster.
Labor needs to sell their message like companies sell products.
Look at how and why advertising works. Most people respond to advertising. The majority of people want to be told what to buy and do. Tell them enough times and they will believe it. Never underestimate the power of advertising. Of course most people that come to this site have a mind of their own, but you are the minority.
What Labor needs to do is to choose some simple slogans and repeat them at every opportunity. Put doubt into peoples mind about the Libs policies. Fear of. the unknown, that’s how a good suspence story is written. People are scared of change. Use it to your advantage.
Labor, you have nothing to loose by going in hard.
Remind people what it means to go back to Howards era. People have short memories. The waste under The Libs team? How about $20 billion going to Iraq. That’s $2000 for every working Australian taxpayer. Remind them.
And wouldn’t it be exciting if all the MSM hacks started to ask the Libs tough questions about their policies. What a specticle that would be!
by Andrew ( ) on Mar 11, 2013 at 1:39 pm
It seems to me that an electorate that goes from espousing nuclear bomb creation of harbours to the digging of a hot water supply channels the length of Australia does bear witness of some individuality, peculiarities and disconnect with the general national aspiration.
Their demands for secessation over the years also reinforces that comparing the WA State electorate alongside many of the other states is open to easy misinterpretation.
But it surely opens the space to lazy maudling bandwagon commentary by many.
by Mike Flanagan on Mar 11, 2013 at 1:50 pm
Here’s some more whistling in the dark to comfort those looking for something, anything, no matter how tenuous redarding the ALP’s prospects for 14 September. What is unusual about the WA election is the number of senior Labor people conceding the influence of federal issues on the result.
John Howard always went loudly the day after another state level loss that the result was only and entirley state issues. I used to think “Well, he would say that”. Labor simply can’t say that on this occasion. It would be seen as yet more laughable spin.
It is quite common for voters to be comfortable having state and federal parliaments from opposite sides of politics. Indeed, the early Rudd administration was unusual in having ALP governments in all juristictions. I think we are about to enter another period like this, brought about only and entirely by the toxic, inept, disconnected and corrupt elements of the Labor brand. My hope is for a period in the wilderness to enable Labor to reconnect with its grass roots, to begin to represent aspirational voters who should naturally be Labor people.
While the unions run things, union lackeys occupy key positions and take their orders from back-room power-brokers including the appointment and dismissal of premiers and prime ministers, Labor is doomed.
by David Hand on Mar 11, 2013 at 1:58 pm
Regrettably Mr Keane, you aren’t Nate Silver.
Secondly most of the article is “to kill the myth”, that State election results have “federal implications”.
But you conclude, “On current polling, the WA election looks likely to be an accurate predictor of a federal poll later in the year, except in understating the size of Labor’s defeat. But it’s a rare exception”.
So the WA results do have some bearing? No, they are indicator? predictor? But its a rare exception? Huh?
by Plane on Mar 11, 2013 at 2:01 pm
ICAC, Ted FailU, Newmannistan… or just that MSM implanted idea that if you like JG, you’re a mug, especially up here.
by Coaltopia on Mar 11, 2013 at 2:08 pm
Thank you Bernard for putting the commentariate straight.
If there were any correlation between Federal and State elections then the Press and the political parties are failing in their duties.
If the electorate are confused or ignorant of the difference between State and Fed. Elections or issues then they have either been misinformed as to level of government they are voting for or the electorate have not been told the truth about which level of Government is responsible for issues affecting the voters’ life.
The assertion that there is any significant crossover effect is so abusive of the intellectual and moral standing of the electorate. Such shallow analysis by so called leaders and representatives is a danger to effective democracy.
by Gilbert Bailey-Wright on Mar 11, 2013 at 2:11 pm
Hi Bernard
Defence Minister Stephen Smith disagrees, he blamed WA election loss on Federal Labor (ABC on Sat night) and one of the ex Labor Ministers blamed Gillard directly (carred on all News programs). Whoops.
Look at the Green plunge in vote, worse news for Labor, who need the preferences. Greens are in terrible trouble, which suprises no one except themselves it seems.
Its all over Bernard, decades in Opposition
by Suzanne Blake on Mar 11, 2013 at 2:21 pm
Is it also a myth that voters prefer to balance state and federal governments with opposing parties?
And if this is not actually a myth will this “Keep The Balance” message be denied oxygen by the media all the way to September? Killed off in the press whether myth or not?
Given the media bias towards the present opposition, the message that wall to wall Liberals is not actually good news for Abbott, is likely to stick in the craw of the unelected politicians of the fourth estate.
Yes, that is what the fourth estate means, unelected politicians in the media, who cannot be voted out of office.
Gee, that would be a good article: “How the media can be trusted NOT to abuse their power”.
Keep the balance?
Is this a voter “basic instinct” for preservation against giving unbridled power to the lowest regarded of the “service” industries and making them thus immune to media manipulations?
Whatever did happen to Jana, the last honest journalist?
“How voters keep the balance” the article that won’t be written, perhaps doesn’t need to be, people not actualy being sheep, after all.
The palace eunuchs of the press, politicians in hiding, do tend to treat voters like sheep, herded from poll to poll?
But not you, Bernard, not you!
by Hamis Hill on Mar 11, 2013 at 2:25 pm
You know, Suzanne, this predeliction for indefinite, “One Party” conservative rule across the entire continent looks very much like the “One Church” agenda of ruling across the whole Orb.
The common feature being antagonism to their enemy, democracy.
Why not just come out and say it, “Democracy does not work”!
Good enough for the spiritual world, why not for the secular?
Or is the faith not strong enough?
Just wait for the inevitable results of “indefinite” conservative rule, which will be the death of democracy, before you will take a premature risk and cry out your true belief; “death to democracy”?
Talk about a wet dream for you.
Voters might have a better view of their own best interests balanced against wall to wall Liberals.
Now most of those disgraced Labor governments got into trouble with the voters by aping the Liberals.
Didn’t they Suzanne?
ALP: Another Liberal Party? Obeid? Property speculation, the white shoe brigade etc etc. Very Liberal isn’t it?
by Hamis Hill on Mar 11, 2013 at 2:52 pm
Hi David;
I suspect you maybe right in your conclusion but I venture to suggest your reasoning lacks credibility.
The corruption among the political elite in Austra;lia is not limited to the ALP. Power does corrupt. We have born witness to it since federation and no group has been afforded a monopoly.
Today we witness in the inodinate influence3 of bodies and financial enterprises that have no voting rights recognsed in law or constitutions.
Yes Howard was a great spin doctor like Abbott. But Howard did nothing except to bribe an electorate and to hell with all the hard work.
The Howard and Costello’s remedy to debt repayment was an economic fallacy and an obvious example.
He tranferred a sovereign debt for a commercial debt by selling infrastructure that had taken many generations to build that satisfied the national needs.
Howard took us to a war on an ‘impulse’ after 9/11 and after having had a luncheob with non other than Rupert Bloody Murdoch.
Today we read reports that Abbott is regular dinner guest with the Murdochs and has a regular weekly visit to the Murdoch Editorial offices.
While I deplore the Obeid style of corruption and agree the ALP have to attend to quality of representatives, the corrupt presentation of policy and influence on our body politic of extraneous parties to the democratic process is evident on all sides.
At least we have a legal and law system that deal with the Obied’s but these other bodies and influences work with impunity and have got so brazen that they don’t even bother with the truth.
by Mike Flanagan on Mar 11, 2013 at 3:00 pm
But all the so-called swings don’t mean anything other than reflections of human movements.
All this navel gazing over nothing much is insane. This is a one party country with some fringe dwellers.
by shepherdmarilyn on Mar 11, 2013 at 3:37 pm
I’m not sure to what extent “Federal Implications” exist statistically, but they are a reality among those I speak to. Sure, it’s anecdotal evidence, but I think it’s unlikely that it’s confined to my circle of acquaintances.
By and large, most of my friends, family and co-workers either can’t distinguish between Federal and state governments, or care so little about state politics that they use the state polls to “send a signal to Canberra”.
I know I certainly did this in 2011 in NSW. I really had become so turned off NSW politics that I had one thing in mind when I voted: sending a signal that I wanted reform of the Labor party, especially at a Federal level, where Rudd had been knifed.
I voted very reluctantly for Gillard in 2010, just because Abbott as PM seemed a scary prospect… but used the 2011 state poll to send a message that I was annoyed with Labor in general, with their factionalism, and with the knifing of Rudd.
Talking to friends and family about the election, the discussion was all about Federal issues. Most people I spoke to couldn’t even name the premier or the opposition leader in NSW, and just wanted to talk about Rudd, Labor’s faceless men, and Gillard’s illegitimacy.
To think Federal issues have no bearing on state polls is as wishful as thinking that by-elections are all about the local member, and not an opinion poll on general government performance.
by AJH on Mar 11, 2013 at 3:58 pm
Mike,
I hope I’m not misunderstood. I’m not a “Libs are good, ALP is bad” sort of bloke. In my view, the most corrupt government I know of in Australia was a right wing outfit that ran Queensland in the 70’s and early 80’s. Not only did it have an outrageous gerrymander to stay in power, but it rorted the Senate replacement convention that destroyed the Whitlam government’s ability to guarantee supply. The sins of that government are many and public.
The Queensland LNP endured a long time in the wilderness, reinventing itself and modifying its views to become electable in the southeast. In doing so, they’ve shed support to the Katter mob in the country.
Labor needs to do the same. “Solidarity forever” anthems at union festivals is exactly the wrong method to re-engage with voters. It’s saying, “The faceless men who got rid of Rudd, Iemma and Rees can get rid of me as well if I don’t do what they say”. It’s toxic.
I don’t favour a country where only one side of politics can be competitive. We need a strong, electable and trusted party of the centre-left.
by David Hand on Mar 11, 2013 at 4:12 pm
David; Thanks for your response and I must admit to wanting to expand our perspectoive of ‘corruption’ to find the ideal of democracy. If the basis of democracy is to be found in the basis of ‘one person one vote’ then we must consider the implications of all the extraneous influences on government policy development and application.
by Mike Flanagan on Mar 11, 2013 at 4:31 pm
Obviously the extent of federal-state overlap in the factors forming voting intentions varies a great deal but in the recent WA case common sense suggests *some* movement of people towards the “Labor’s faction and union ridden oligarchic and careerist structure is rotten” camp as a reason for changing their vote in order above all to prevent Labor getting into government again (they might be recalling the WA Inc was worse under Labor than under the occasional not-totally-honest Liberal Premier too). The NSW Obeid and Thomson factors could be the last straw.
Much less complicated is the fact that WA voters would particularly dislike the Mining tax and Carbon tax.
by Warren Joffe on Mar 11, 2013 at 4:45 pm
@ Mike Flanagan,
You said “It seems to me that an electorate that goes from espousing nuclear bomb creation of harbours to the digging of a hot water supply channels the length of Australia”
That’s factually wrong. The electorate certainly didn’t espouse the digging of a hot water supply the length of Australia. Colin Barnett lost the election he ran on that crazy idea and the electorate here went with Labor’s much more sensible plan to build a couple of desalination plants.
The only reason “Canal Colin” made it in the next election was because Labor had to sack 3 Ministers for being associated with Brian Burke and so he pulled a Bradbury to win a minority government. Still hardly a ringing endorsement of his policies.
I don’t know where the harbour nukes thing comes from, I know in the 70’s some idiots were proposing mining the Pilbara with nukes, but again as we still aren’t doing it, it’s safe to say that the electorate here didn’t espouse the idea.
by Steven Warren on Mar 11, 2013 at 4:56 pm
Given that the last Federal election was the only election I can remember where the election hadn’t already been called by the time WA ballots closed, with journalists phoning in the WA coverage drunk on champagne or crying the bitter tears of defeat, the only way WA’s voting will affect the Federal polls is if the election is as close as last time.
Far more likely WA voters will still be lining up at the booths when the election is called and our votes become worthless.
by Steven Warren on Mar 11, 2013 at 5:09 pm
@ Steven Warren
Labor needs to WIN seats and not lose ANY seats. So every seat with a + / - 15% margin comes into play. More so the 5 most marginal seats in the country.
Steve the result is an unbackable favourite. Take the $1.12 the bookies are offering, as its better than ASX returns after franking and certainly better than cash rates.
by Suzanne Blake on Mar 11, 2013 at 5:16 pm
Suzanne Blake, I think we have to acknowledge that Labor’s solid defeat in the WA election is PARTLY due to Federal Labor and that is what Stephen Smith did. But Colin Barnett also ran an effective administration and the electorate rewarded him for that. If your “theory” were correct the Victorian State Government would not be behind Labor in the polls.
by Harry1951 on Mar 11, 2013 at 5:18 pm
Pity about that sky news exit poll though, eh BK?
by Scott on Mar 11, 2013 at 9:13 pm
Steve Warren;
I accept the use oif the word ‘electorate’ is a bit of a stretch. But this hairbrain idea did have official party endorsement.
The ‘nuke harbour’ proposition was non other the Gina Rineharts father’s idea.
I am still trying to work out what they intended to do with the stockpile of contaminated material. But the old mans suggestion, while single handedly opening blue asbestoes mine at Wittennoon, on how to resolve the indeginous ‘problem’ by poisoning their waterholes, may give us an inkling.
by Mike Flanagan on Mar 12, 2013 at 9:41 am
There was only a 2.3% swing against Labor in WA. Whoopee.
It is the most conservative state in Australia ; the most dominated by mining companies ; Growth and employment are strong ; the Liberals have only been in one term.
State Labor promised to spend an enormous amount of money without saying how it would be paid for in the most heavily indebted state in the country. A lie often repeated doesn’t become true.
BTW, it was your beloved St Kevin that introduced the mining tax…
by green-orange on Mar 12, 2013 at 12:27 pm
Whilst is no doubt the red-headed witch needs to be turfed out, Queenslander under Newman / Seeney / Nicholls should serve as a good example of what happens when a gubmunt (mis-spelling intended) is given a humungous majority. The RAbbott is almost certainly going to have a raft of friends waiting to be assigned cushy jobs for which they are neither qualified nor entitled & with a potentially decimated federal ALP, there is only the totally disfunctional Green tribe in the Senate to oppose him. Personally I wouldn’t trust the Greens as far as I could throw them as the party has proven on countless occasions that any and all principles are negotiable when there is a chance of getting on the gravy-train.
by Yes Minister on Mar 26, 2013 at 7:51 am