Macquarie University researchers Ben Spies-Butcher and Shaun Wilson have released results of a study they’ve done into the results of last year’s election. They’re interested in whether a large third party campaign (specifically the Your Rights At Work effort directed by the ACTU and its affiliates) influenced the election. This is what they got up to:
We develop a linear regression model based on the seat-by-seat results, and the swing against the Howard Government (two party preferred) recorded in each. This approach uses statistical correlation to test whether there is a relationship between particular features of a seat (for example, its age composition) and the anti-government swing recorded in that seat. A particular advantage of this type of model is that it can separate out the effects of different factors.
They found:
But the most noteworthy finding, for our purposes, comes from the final set of variables relating to WorkChoices. We find evidence that the ACTU campaign had a significant impact on the outcome of the election. First, our ‘working families’ variable shows a significant, consistent, and strong relationship to the size of the anti-Howard swing. Seats home to middle income families with kids (the ‘working families’ demographic) were significantly more likely to swing to Labor. This result only reinforces our earlier finding that seats with larger older populations were significantly less likely to swing to Labor, as older families are far less likely to have members in the workforce and have dependent children.
Perhaps more surprisingly, our model also suggests a significant and sizeable effect from the YRAW marginal seat campaigns. Again, this was a very stable result in several different models, indicating an additional swing of between 1.3–2 per cent in seats with ACTU-led YRAW organisers and campaigns, once other factors are controlled for. Importantly, this effect is independent of the strong and significant swing recorded in seats with higher numbers of working families. One way of illustrating the impact of the specific ACTU campaign effects is to count the number of targeted seats with very small margins (under 1.3 per cent). We find five seats—Bass, Corangamite, Hasluck, Flynn and Solomon—were all won by margins less than or equal to 1.3 per cent, the lower estimate in our models attributed to the campaign’s influence. A further two seats—Braddon and Deakin—were won with margins of less than 2 per cent, the upper limit of the estimate.
They also looked at various socio-economic and geographical factors in the swing, and tested George Megalogenis’ hypothesis that the vote of single parents was an important driver of the Labor swing, finding only limited support for it. I won’t summarise all the results, because it’s a clearly written, and I think quite intriguing research report, and I’d urge you to read it for yourself.
He’s ba-a-a-a-ack… Telling a US neocon audience how great WorkChoices was. Let’s see if John McCain wants to pick it up and run with it! Ha ha ha… Check out the comments, says it all really.
Has been. Loser. Wanker. War Criminal. Bastard.
Boiler plate neocon babble, for the usual suspects. It’s called ‘preaching to the choir’ in the US. I suppose they paid a motza and that’s why he went. It will take a sh*tload to buy anything as fancy as the prime real estate the grown up family had become accustomed to for eleven years. I wonder how Mrs Buckett is coping without the hired help? She must be gnashing her teeth at the misfortunes befalling the exalted First Family of the conservative majority. Ha ha ha.
Gee, Gandhi, tell us what you really think.
The Roodent couldn’t get a gig speaking anywhere here. The Libs are shedding his heritage as quickly as they can.
There seems to be a proliferation of off topic comments lately. This could all be posted on the Saturday Salon open thread. The link to the analysis of the reasons for the Labor win has been posted for a reason. It would be polite to at least start by discussing it, rather than immediately going off topic!
Well, Mark, I did post the link with a reference to WorkChoices, thinking it would add another dimension to the discussion. But whatever. It’s your blog etc.
The Workchoices hypothesis was what I expected to be behind the swing.
Working class areas in Melbourne, many of which were already solid ALP territory, still managed to provide swings in the order of 5-10% to Labor. There are entire swathes of the metropolitan area where there must be scarcely a Coalition voter to be found.
The effect was smaller in scale, but it’s also worth considering the effect of the NT ‘intervention’. In the relevant areas, I think the 2PP vote swung significantly, and left the ALP with something like an 80-85% share.
Adam Carr at his Psephos site made a similar sort af analysis, which I can’t locate anymore. One of his main points was it was the ‘Howard battlers’ that returned to the ALP due to the YRW Campaign. The much vaunted ‘doctor’s wives’ vote didn’t materialise and any expectation that the ALP would win electorates such as Higgins or Wentworth were dashed.
It’s interesting in terms of the by elections which will happen at some time. Inhabitants of ‘leafy green suburbs’ such as Higgins aren’t nearly so susceptible to these sorts of campaigns and they’re irrelevant now anyway. So, I wonder what going to happen in these by elections? Are the Libs so on the nose that the ALP have a chance? Would strong independent candidates in electorates such as Mayo and Gippsland give it a red hot go?
It also calls into the doubt the proposition that the ALP should distance itself from the unioun movement. They’ve turned out to be might powerful friends.
Still hold to my strong opinion despite all the psephological analysis that one of the great unstated reasons for Howard’s loss was that the majority of Australians were sick if being lied to and taken for fools. Workcxhoices was part of this. What the ex-Government said and what workers were experiencing in the workplace were two different things. If the ACTU Workchoices campaign was just a scare campaign or bullsh*t it woud have been a fizzer. Apart from organizing campaigns in marginal electorates, the ACTU was putting into terms people could identify with what was actually happening in the workplace. The suppressed data on the AWA rip-offs recently publicised by Gillard demonstrated this. Further to my argument, even accounting for the ‘glow’ (which still hasn’t worn off btw)the really really distinctive thing about Rudd and I think all his ministers is that they tell the truth, which, honeymoon aside, I would argue accounts for Rudd’s extremely high approval rating. Interestingly, no survey has put the question as to how the electorate’s perception of Howard’s truthfulness affected voting decisions seems to have been taken, that I’m aware of.
btw, Mark, a thread by some-one on Howard’s egregious overseas speech would be nice.
Done, Paul!
I agree with Paul Burns but feel my data is a bit limited for me to insist upon it too firmly. WorkNoChoices was simply the straw that broke the camel’s back.
OTOH I doubt the axiom that ‘Oppositions don’t win elections; Governments lose them’. Without a credible leader, Oppositions don’t win — the last NSW election being a case in point. Debnam had an aura of insanity about him while Iemma successfully radiated well-meaning incompetence.
The Liberal party scare campaigns worked really well in previous elections even though they were at best only vaguely connected with the truth. Why should ACTU/Labor scare campaigns need to be based on the truth to be successful?
I wonder how the guys defined “single parent” because they do not say what measure they used. I just ask because if their criteria for “working family” is children+ weekly earnings of $650 or more, a lot of single parents would meet those criteria and hence their voting patterns would be subsumed under the overall “working families” group.
Chris (a different one,
Because in the case of the ACTU campaign it was about something workers were experiencing every day.If the ACTU was just trying to scare people, it wouldn’t have worked because people woulds have said “This isn’t happening to me.” (Which might have bee4n the case in WA. I don’t know enough about why Labor dids badly there. Howard’s scare campaigns were of a different kind: they were scare campaigns that touched deeply into the national psyche - non-white perils descending on us from the north because they have nowhere to go except come south;mysterious foregn nations threatening our island safety - brown violent muslims instead of yellow-skinned communists or mysterious exotic Russians; physical attacks on the national homeland - it happened in Bali, the US, etc. It will happen here! These were fears we had experienced in the past with variously, the French, the Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Indonesians,Communists from everywhere; and Howard, with his knowledge of history and ordinary Australianess knew us well enough to tap into the the dark side of our nature and exploit it with an uncommon political ruthfulness. He failed with Workchoices and in various other areas because he forgot that bright side of our nature w3hich really does believe in a fair go and sticking up for the underdog. And that bright side is what Rudd is tapping into now.
… my further point being that unless they had some way of excluding sole parents from their “working families” measure then their conclusions about there being no significant anti-welfare to work vote is not necessarily valid. Because, it bears repeating, most sole parents work but not full-time and hence can be both middle income earners ($650pw) and affected by welfare to work (some of that $650 comes from PP). The article seemed to suggest that they defined a working family as having children and middle income but I did not see that they had determined that all of those families included were two-parent families only.