Early lessons from the 2022 election

Jun 11, 2022
Illustration - ballot box, Australian flag, vote ticked, hands up!
The major take away from this early assessment is that the Labor Party calibrated their campaign very well Image: iStock

The famous American writer, economist and political activist, John Kenneth Galbraith said in 1967:” This is a year when the people are right and the politicians are wrong”.

In 2022 he might have said: “This is the year in which the people are right and the commentators are wrong.” The counting of the election is not over yet although the result is now clear. Reflections so far have been at a superficial level.

There is obviously a need for serious consideration of the longer term meaning of apparent trends. But we need more time to consider which are ephemeral effects and which are enduring.

However, some things are obvious.

First, the polls got it right again, as they did in Western Australia and South Australia.

It appears so because they all picked the winner. But the real lesson is that they got within 1-2% of the two-party preferred voting outcome. It looks like the final numbers will be approximately 52:48 in favour of Labor.

Second, women candidates again did relatively well. It is not useful to do a national average as I did for the SA election because state by state factors are so important on this occasion, and because there were a large number of seats in which the Labor Party did not actually wish to win any votes. I will come back to the significance of that.

However, of the 10 seats which the ALP has won from the Liberals, female candidates won 7. We also saw the obvious impact of female candidates in the Teal seats.

A more significant (but less noticed so far in the media} fact is that it appears that in every state the largest swing to Labor was won by a woman:

Greenway (NSW)

Chisholm   (Vic)

Lilley           (QLD)

Sturt           (SA)

Pearce       (WA)

Franklin     (Tas).

The polling also suggests that the biggest swing against coalition candidates was amongst female voters. This is a trend which will need some further analysis as there were obviously short-term factors at play, but the voting pattern has been moving this way for some time.

Third, there has been much emphasis on the extremely low primary vote for the ALP. This was taken to extreme levels in the sadly inadequate ABC coverage of the election results. I was amazed that Tanya Plibersek was so polite to some of her interlocutors.

The low vote needs to be qualified by the large number of seats in which either the Labor Party did not actively campaign or there was evident tactical voting by what would otherwise have been Labor voters. In many cases it was both.

On a brief initial analysis, it is possible to identify at least 15 seats in this category, and there are probably more. That is at least 10% of the seats in the House of Representatives in which the effective support for Labor was understandably suppressed by tactical voting. This is not the first time such a thing has happened but in 2022 it occurred at an unprecedented level. Adjusting for the impact of this would provide a more realistic assessment of the Labor vote. This would probably lead to figure roughly equivalent to the coalition vote of 35-36%.

Nevertheless, it is obvious that the major parties have recorded an extremely low proportion of the vote in the House. This trend was evident in a much more extreme manner in the recent French presidential election.

There is no reason to believe that this is a problem for democracy or progressive policies, although it will cost both parties a significant loss of public funding.

Nor does it undermine the legitimacy of Anthony Albanese’s victory. The preferential system allows voters to express their effective choice as to who they want to see form the government between the realistic alternatives while voting for the extremes of right and left or for Independents.

However, it is an important sign of what may be major issues in the future and warrants closer attention over the next few months.

A fourth assessment is that the Nationals are kidding themselves if they believe they did well at this election. It is true that they held all their seats, and this is quite an achievement. However, in the main it was built on the back of the tremendous margins which were generated in Queensland seats last time. On this occasion there was a swing of 4% away from the Nationals in those seats, and 3% nationwide. The only state in which they did well was Victoria. After this election at least four of the Nationals seats are within striking distance of Labor or an Independent. This sets aside the disastrous impact Barnaby Joyce had on the chances of city-based Liberals. “Vote Sharma/Zimmerman etc, get Barnaby” was a very powerful message.

A fifth factor to consider is that while the Liberal Party did not win any of their outer metropolitan target seats, they did get swings to them in seats such as Lindsay and McEwen. This is another example of a potential re-alignment of political support across the country which the major parties and Independents will need to heed.

A sixth lesson from this election is that although the Labor Party did not suffer the extensive ravages of the Liberals in the inner-city seats it is clear that they face challenges in future. It is likely that Sydney and Grayndler will be hard to hold when Tanya Plibersek and Anthony Albanese choose to retire as Melbourne was when Lindsay Tanner retired. This is not necessarily an irreversible trend but it will be a challenge to both Labor and the Liberals. Unless the Greens face the awkward realities of government some time in the future they will continue to prosper because they can promise the undeliverable without risk.

Finally, the major take away from this early assessment is that the Labor Party calibrated their campaign very well. They did not stack up huge majorities in safe seats while scaring off the key voters in marginal seats. Nor did they lose any seats to the coalition. The two-term strategy which Anthony Albanese has outlined makes sense. Promise as much as you can deliver in the first term and build the case for more change over the three years up to the next election.

Both major parties will need to reflect on the medium-term implications of what has occurred at this election. In the interim I would caution against rushing to judgement based on any assumption that the future will be a straight-line extrapolation from the recent past.

Share and Enjoy !

Subscribe to John Menadue's Newsletter
Subscribe to John Menadue's Newsletter

 

Thank you for subscribing!