The name of the game at the moment in Canberra is the competition between claims to “legitimacy” – a new concept in Australian politics, it would seem, as no one, I think, ever suggested John Howard should not form a government in 1998 because Labor won the two party preferred vote.
Obviously, the difference is that neither party won a majority of seats, but it’s worthwhile noting that on election night, George Brandis was quick to claim that the Coalition had won because it appeared then that the Liberals and Nationals were ahead of Labor in the AEC’s count. Then we had that quickly consigned to oblivion, as Julia Gillard staked her own legitimacy claim. Now it’s being reported all over the place that the Coalition is ahead again.
True, but meaningless, if the assertion is that we know now who won more votes in a two party preferred sense. Antony Green, William Bowe and Peter Brent all explain why.
The only number that counts is 76.
This won’t stop the rhetoric, of course.
The latest inflation thereof is Tony Abbott’s claim that “we are no longer in Opposition”.
Make of that what you will.
Advise all commenters to check the AEC website before commenting. try vtr.aec.gov.au
As only 81% of the vote has been counted, ie the prepoll and postal votes are not yet counted, no seats have been declared, and any push to get the independents to pick a side is premature.
I am ashamed at the lack of impartiality exhibited by the ABC falling into line with News Corp propaganda.
Actually SMH is now saying that Labor is slightly ahead 2PP again. But as Antony Green no doubt wants to tattoo on everyone’s head, it makes absolutely no difference. If we still had knights, I’d be putting Antony Green up for a knighthood. The poor man has suffered enough.
Kim,
To answer your questions – no-one (yet) and no.
To me the really bizarre claim today came from Emerson – saying (to paraphrase) that because the ALP bans independence from its members the independents should support them.
Can anyone follow that logic?
It’s symbolic. Thus the left shall be in awe for all things symbolic are important. Saying sorry to Aborigines doesn’t cure disease or lift literacy or stop domestic violence but it’s the only policy issue the left seem to notice. Going it alone on an ETS will kill jobs, drive up prices, push emissions off shore and do nothing for the planet but think of the symbolism. The two party prefered vote doesn’t decide who governs but when it’s going your way and it’s all you’ve got then it’s a sign from Gaia. Of course if it isn’t going your way then it’s irrelevant.
Sorry I couldn’t resist a free kick. But don’t worry it’s merely metaphorical.
The link from Kim to Abbott’s claim takes us to classic propaganda.
A one sided claim that distorts truth yet is presented as if real and valid by the medium, in this case the OO [no surprise], so as to further the political aims of one group at the expense of another.
Bloody disgraceful.
Re Emerson – he’s pointing out that ALP rules mean members rarely cross the floor. I assume its a reference to the two Libs refusing to back Phoney on Nauru – which could kill it off in a parliament like this.
Whether that a *good* argument is another matter, of course.
Mr Abbott is correct that he’s no longer in opposition. His focus is currently on trying to form a government and suppress the disorder in his “coalition” before there’s bloodshed. Mostly the latter, but in theory he’s also trying to do the former. Or at least be seen to try. Sounds a bit Monty-Pythonesque, but that’s the impression I get from watching the Coalition antics.
@ 3
While I neither disagree nor agree with it, what Emerson was indicating was that because the ALP votes as a bloc and members are not allowed to cross the floor, they can guarantee 72 votes from their side every time a vote is called in the house. The logic is that Coalition MPs could choose to vote against their own legislation on day one and potentially bring down a Tony Abbott government, whereas Labor can offer 3 years where party members will toe the line and thus guarantee stability.
One doesn’t have to agree with the sentiment but it is a logical point.
Also, which two party preferred vote? I thought the independents had failed to declare their votes (and don’t need to do so until parliament actually sits), so at this stage all we can discuss is intentions? That’s the vote counting that matters now, barring the AEC changing some of its provisional results.
One thing I’m wondering about is the prospect of one or more independents changing their vote between when they first declare an intention and when parliament actually sits. That could be really, really entertaining.
Gosh it’s fun to see all the commenters on AG’s blog try to argue the ABCs (and Green’s) pro-ALP bias in the face of Green’s heroic efforts at impartiality. A knighthood may be out but does anyone know if he has an AO or the like?
The media’s reporting of the ‘Libs grab the 2PP lead’ story is atrocious and indicative of the depths that journalism has sunk in this country.
It took three or four of our online psephologists to point that this is an administrative issue. Eight seats have been taken out of the count temporarily.
But the media’s frenzied race call makes no allowance for niceties of this sort.
When Anthony Green pointed this out, the ABC blandly reported that a “row had broken out” over the issue, as if the actual facts were in dispute.
It was analogous to way the ABC has reported on climate change and a host of issues – pitting a patent untruth against an established fact and claiming the issue at stake was “controversial”.
In the ABC’s case, it’s a weasley way of editors and reporters avoiding being accused of the dreaded “bias”. In News Ltd’s case, it’s purely intentional.
I think Antony Green and some others could be put to good use devising a test of Australian constitutional, historical and political knowledge to be sat by reporters and commentators from Australia’s media outlets, with the test scores for both individuals and media outlets to be posted on a league table which would be required by law to be placed on the home page of every participating media outlet. I think the results would be most amusing.
Its not winning the 2PP result that matters; its winning the News Ltd narrative that matters.
On a more serious note, this 2PP debate that has been taking place does illustrate a lot of what is wrong with media reporting in Australia today. Firstly, the large amount of articles that omitted points like the non-inclusion of some electorates in the counting. Secondly, the way that the media turns this irrelevancy into a major story when there is nothing else to report.
Stepping out the drama for a minute: it really is an extraordinary dead heat in the lower house.
50-50 on 2PP (or close enough)
level on seats
level on guaranteed supporter of 1 extra seat
My view is the best way to see the election is this:
Punters ultimately wanted neither patry. Huge dissatisfation with the govt, but no enthusiasm at all for the coalition.
*But:* they voted strongly centre-left in the senate as insurance against a possible Abbott win.
Thats the one clear outcome from all this. There was even a swing *against* the coalition in the Senate.
Lefty E: I see that as a successful campaign by both major parties (and the various other coalition members). The ALP did not want us to vote for the Coalition, making that the major focus of their campaign. Result: a solid win. The Coalition, on the other hand, did not want us to vote for the ALP and made that their major focus. Result: a solid win.
Both groups got exactly what they asked for.
Interesting Moz – its the ultimate outcome of purely negative campaigning – neither wins!
I think in the absence of any direction from the public in the lower house level we should all just go with the clear preference for a center-left govt expressed in the upper house.
Who’s with me? MSM?
Kim:
So far as I’m concerned, we can never have true democracy in Australia until the use of the term “Two Party Preferred” is made a felony – with a minimum sentence of fifteen years hard labour.
Apart from the fact that the so-called 2PP is irrelevant, if it was relevant then the only thing that could be said is that it is so close that it is truly remarkable. Well within error margins, basically the election is an absolute dead heat.
Surely the only guide to independents think must be the likelihood of good, stable government.
Nice try Lefty E. I agree but unfortunately I don’t own a large chunk of the MSM
Labor lost over 36K votes in Fowler+Watson alone from 2007 to 2010 this is why the national figure is even close, but these are the voters ignored by all
It doesn’t matter a jot.
He not only spins relentlessly to the media but to his own wretched side as well. And of course, being hooked on spin, they buy it.
The ABC’s coverage was abysmal on this – gave it lots of prominence on radio all morning, but was 99% soundbites from self-interested parties.
Was it really so difficult to at least get some expert comment saying- ‘this is a load of BS’ – or having the so-called journalists do some journalism and explain the situation?
ABC – 1/10.
Exactly, Michael. It gets back to what I keep saying about the loss of craft standards in journalism. Previously in newsrooms, there was a cranky old bloke (or blokette) telling the reporter “mate, this is NOT a story. What did you expect these people to say?’
But the ABC now just routinely runs with whatever’s wetting everyone’s pants up at News Ltd each morning. They’ve completely lost their bullshit detectors.
It’s just this bland recitation of the talking points of vested interest without any semblance of editorial judgement, which is what they used to pay good journos for.
Mr Denmore, that’s true, but it’s no coincidence, or a result of sloppy journalism or whatever – it’s a result of a deliberate policy from management.
Yes, the ABC board, Scott and Tim Dalton really have turned public broadcasting into “scab ally” at the ABC and SBS- mirrors of tabloidism.
But who missed (that’s the most benign word I can think of) their chance to reform public broadcasting, when the opportunity presented itself?
The real nonsense, from what I can see, is the conservative indies insistence that one or other party (meaning the Tories) stays the full three years, without a clear mandate and furthermore, without any release prior to the election, of policies and costings from the Tories.
And until the Greens gain the senate in a year, no senate scrutiny worthy of the name.
How inconceivable that Abbott and a likely punitive Thatcherist economics, should be foistered on the nation in this way.
At least we had some idea of where we stood with Labor, but the likely decison by the indies, urged on by the Hansonist ignorami out there hooked on tabloid media, to reward bad behaviour,regarless of knowledge of harm to be done, is as gormless as the thinking and behaviours that came and still, come from the majors.
Time to privatise the ABC. Or maybe mutualise.
In other words, Mr. Denmore and Paul W, if the OO and the ABC sat the exam I flagged at #12, the OO and ABC would both fail, and the ABC would be called before the Misconduct Committee for plagiarism
I agree, Adrian. It was significant to me last night on Q&A when Malcolm Fraser made that strong and clear statement indicting the role of News Ltd in our election process that Tony Jones did not pursue the issue. It was left hanging in the air without an invitation to other panellists to comment before the discussion moved on to other topics.
Surely it was no coincidence either that Australian Story last night featured the generous and benevolent Rupert Murdoch so strongly supporting the work of Jack Heath in combatting youth suicide. Murdoch’s influence extends far beyond the media outlets of News Ltd. and the laziness of other journalists who follow their reports. Too many of them working for significant news and information programs like the 7.30 Report and Lateline fall too quickly into following the News Ltd. line for it to be a cooincidence. We are all manipulated by Murdoch and his propaganda machine.
OK, so a skim of comments it appears agreed that we don’t know who’s ahead until all votes are in, that all claims to the contrary are at best media beat-ups led by the evil Murdoch and at worst Abbott propaganda, and that it doesn’t matter anyway.
I have only one question then: why did St Julia start this hare by claiming legitimacy as early as election night on the basis of 2PP at a stage when even fewer votes were counted, where can I view all comments vociferously condemning her at that time for having done so, and why precisely is logical media follow-up of a claim put about by a Prime Minister “abysmal journalism”?
Well, three questions.
29, not sure what you mean by “oo” but on the substance I sadly agree. Nothing comes thru auntie prior to or in conflict with Murdoch. Media Watch, I think- somebody, anyway, gave the definitive example in the Queensland ABC’s refusal to cover further developments QLD privatisation because, it was “not an issue”.
But labor didn’t fix public broadcasting when they had a chance, and paid for it in the election coverage against them.
Same as they are paying for not going to an elections six months ago, because it would have meant ceding a little bit of oversight to the Greens in the senate; also for the arrogance and selfishness of certain state governments.
1. You’ll have to ask Gillard that. I’m talking about the media reporting.
2. Who is going to condemn a politician for trying to seek a debating advantage?
3. It is not a media follow-up of Gillard’s claim. It is the media failing to do their job properly by mentioning that the 2PP has not been finalised yet.
Paul @28, I think most Australian journalists these days get their understand of our politics from watching The West Wing and Fox News.
As far as most of them are concerned, the PM is the head of state, his or her wife/partner is the “first lady” (or man) and politicians operate “within the beltway”.
A big part of what’s wrong with Australian politics (or just simply Australia) is our uncritical aping and/or application of US norms to our own society.
The Liberal Party now is consciously importing the Republican/Tea Party rhetoric and tactics of deliberate obfuscation and obstruction for the sake of it, the telling of bald-faced lies and the formation of alliances with a thuggish and fascist media.
It depends on the context, Wozza. As I remember it, a News Ltd put the question that since the coalition (or it might have been Mr Abbott’s side) had the highest primary vote should they not be first entitled to try to form a government? Her short response was that in our system it is decided by the two-party preferred vote.
Not an unreasonable response in relation to the question. Of course, government is decided on the floor of the House, not on either primary or 2pp. But when someone is trying to claim the higher moral ground for getting a larger primary vote it is understandable.
The 2pp, ironically, was devised by the coalition parties as a way of avoiding ‘wastage’ in “3-cornered” contests where you’d often get, say Labor 38%, Country 36%, Liberal 26%. The vote preferences of the lowest were then transferred usually giving the Country Party an easy win. If it was first-past-the-post (ie decided on primary votes) the seat would have gone to Labor.
Unfortunately Mr Denmore @33, they can only get away with it with the active connivance of the media.
Since 6 seats are going to be held by members not from the two parties, what is the relevance of the total 2PP preferred vote in any case, especially when (as measured) it’s so close?
Slightly off-topic, it’s interesting in our context to read this piece in the Online Journalism Review of the media’s current histrionic reporting in the US of the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ debate.
The writer points out that the phrase itself is inaccurate and untruthful, but this distinction is lost “in an age of six-word iPhone headlines, warp speed online skimming, and well-financed PR and political hucksters trying to smoke-bomb plain language”.
Without adhering to the most basic journalistic principles of accuracy, the media is no better than performance art, he says.
That’s what struck me with the treatment of this 2PP, Liberals have won, story.
Since we’re playing the game of ‘ner nerny ner ner’ it was actually George Brandis who started it, early on election night, when it appeared the Liberals were ahead on 2PP.
Whatever the 2PP result ends up being and whoever ends up forming government, for one side its going to be the “Stolen Election” and breed a bunch of conspiracy theories.
Mr Denmore, I think we are now reaping the harvest of the late Howard’s final and most complete wedge- the AUSFTA.
Does it matter? Only if it sways the decision of the marginal MP in the H of R.
In other words, no.
I’m chuffed to read that Abbott is no longer in opposition and look forward to seeing his commission signed in the presence of the GG.
*/Cue crickets…
And then his ritual disembowelling and beheading on the steps of Parliament House three years hence.
Do they still make pikes?
Those geniuses in the Oz today wrote that Hawke in _’87_ lost the 2PP vote.
So much for any clarity or intelligence from them on this subject.
Tony Abbott may claim that “we are no longer in Opposition”, but the reality is that until the independents decide who will form government the Coalition is still the Opposition with one foot our of the grave and Labor is in limbo wishing upon a star so, at the moment, both major parties are in the middle of nowhere.
The 2PP figure represents what would have happened if there had been a one on one contest between Labor and the coalition. If we want an electoral system that is as democratic as possible while making a clear decision re which party/coalition will form government the answer has got to be a system that delivers government on the basis of the two party preferred vote only.
Sure, the current system has allowed parties/coalitions to form government after losing the two party preferred. However, this merely needs the system needs reforming, not that delivering government to whoever loses the two party vote is OK just because someone manages to convince some independents otherwise.
Interesting thought. In Qld during the Joh era the Liberals would probably have won a one on one contest against both the Nats and Labor even on the rare occasions when the Nat primary was above the Liberal primary. Am i the only one that thinks the most democratic outcome would have been a Liberal government under these circumstances?
John D @ 46 the flaw in your argument is that there WASN’T a ‘one on one contest between Labor and the coalition’. It’s quite implausible to try to use the results of the election we actually had to pretend we know what would have happened in a hypothetical election in another reality.
It’s likely that many people only fill in preferences to avoid an informal vote. Lots of them presumably just follow their first choice party’s how to vote card. Attempts to argue that preferences represent a reliable statement of voters’ considered opinions are therefore not well-founded.
John D:
Democracy is a government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. It does not restrict people voting only for two parties, that’s closer to an oligarchy.
Mr Denmore (on 25):
Exactly! They’re not even a reporter’s bootlace.
One way of dragging the ABC back into the real world might be to reduce their funding at a ratio of 50:1 for each dollar’s worth of free advertising the donate to the ALP and to the LNP in so-called “news” stories.
Nobody expects the ABC to hang on every word uttered by an independent or a minority party candidate but even the slightest mention of the existence of such candidates during the election campaign would have been a graet improvement on their abysmal performance. Whatever happened to the basic curiosity and scepticism that separates a real journalist from a propaganda hack?
And as an example of what’s wrong with the ABC, just take a look at how they fumbled the business of 400+ votes that no longer count in the Flynn electorate. Oh well, neither the ALP nor the LNP candidates’ tallies are affected therefore there is no story that would interest the public in it, would there? Pig’s what ….!