No enemies to the right?

Anthony Albanese has a piece in the #Ozfail (not linked) restating standard [1] claims that political life is increasingly characterized by echo chambers and that we ought to make more of an effort to engage with those whose views differ from ours.

He mentions, as example of the dire consequences of not doing this, some international examples

this polarisation in global politics has seen the demise of many of the historically successful progressive political parties such as France’s Socialist Party, PASOK in Greece, the Partito Democratico in Italy, the Social Democrats in Germany and many other affiliates of the Socialist International.

In many countries, parties of the radical Right have emerged with disillusioned working-class people as their social base.

What’s striking about this list is that most of the examples lost votes at least as much to parties on their left, which rejected their complicity in austerity: Syriza in Greece, Melenchon’s la France Insoumise, and the Greens in Germany and the Netherlands. Yet there’s no hint in Albanese’s article that the centre-left needs to be open to the views of such groups and their supporters: apparently, we need to be talking to the supporters of Golden Dawn, Le Pen, AfD and so on.

Albanese’s position in Australian politics is exactly the same. He’s happy to talk to Andrew Bolt and the Oz in the interests of an open debate, but as far as I know he has never had a good word to say about the Greens, let along sought to open a dialogue with them. Apparently some alternative views are more equal than others.

fn1. Although claims that the Interent has produced echo chambers have been made widely, it’s far from obvious that exposure to alternative views has diminished. Before the Internet, a rightwinger might read the Oz and their local Murdoch paper, watch Kerry Packer’s Channel 9, and listen to Alan Jones on the radio. Their social circle would often consist mostly of likeminded people, or would be one in which politics was avoided. It was (and remains) harder for a left-winger to get news only from leftwing sources, but someone who stuck to the ABC and the Fairfax press would have been exposed primarily to a socially liberal perspective.

I’m pretty sure there is empirical evidence on this, but I haven’t got time to look for it now.

55 thoughts on “No enemies to the right?

  1. “he has never had a good word to say about the Greens”

    Well, they do keep trying to take his seat. If he had a good word about them, the voters in his electorate might conclude that they should vote for them.

  2. I can’t figure how to make any sense of the suggestion ‘that we ought to make more of an effort to engage with those whose views differ from ours’ without some explanation of what kind of ‘engagement’ is meant.

  3. John Quiggin: “Yet there’s no hint in Albanese’s article that the centre-left needs to be open to the views of such groups and their supporters.”

    What purpose would be served by the ALP talking to the Greens? The realpolitik, as Smith9 notes, means smooching the Greens would make no sense.

  4. Yes I can see one problem that a Labour/Greens coalition would have compared to the LNP. There is not a clear demarcation where each should run. Any attempt at one is likely to be highly contentious.

  5. Well, they do keep trying to take his seat.

    If the ALP were to follow a rule of no exchange of views with parties which try to take seats away from ALP members, that would mean not only no exchange of views with the Greens, but also no exchange of views with One Nation, Katter’s Australian Party, the Centre Alliance, the Derryn Hinch Justice Party, and so on. Maybe that would be a good thing, but maybe it would be a good thing for the rule to be clear.

  6. What electoral purpose is served by talking to the right wing of the LNP ? Albanese’s purported argument is that we need to talk about the issues rather than polarising into opposed groups. This argument applies just as well, or as badly, to the Greens as to the LNP.

  7. It’s nearing “SAVE OUR ALBO” time again. Albanese owes his ar, his um, his seat, to Murdoch – ’nuff said. Plibersek’s increasing debt to Murdoch isn’t far behind.

  8. Talking to the Greens (or their supporters) isn’t the same thing at all as talking to ON. The Greens are in direct competition with the Labor Party as the party of the centre-left. The Greens have said quite openly that they want to replace the Labor Party. The last thing the Labor Party wants to do is legitimise the Greens,.

    Talking to ON supporters might be a hopeless and futile cause because many of them are incorrigible racists or incipient fascists or whatever. On the other hand, many might be persuaded that the Labor Party represents their economic interests (which could even be true.)

    And, of course, persuading Liberal voters in Liberal seats to vote Labor can be very rewarding. Ask Daniel Andrews.

  9. smith9 is correct. The ALP must convince working class voters who vote right of centre that the ALP best represents their interests. How can they do that if they don’t put a peg on their collective noses and talk to Bolt etc? What would be the point of chatting instead to a Green snowflake with The Guardian readers as the audience?

    The Greens on the other hand must be fought tooth and nail for the left of centre vote.

  10. It’s much simpler if we stick to Albo’s personal situation. His best chance is for the Libs to run in Grayndler and preference him ahead of the Greens. And that’s exactly the pitch he makes to them

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/may/29/anthony-albanese-warns-liberal-party-not-to-preference-the-greens

    As long as he doesn’t go so far as to endanger his preselection, it makes absolute sense for him to cosy up to Bolt and similar.

    But he wants to claim something a bit more elevating than a preference deal with the Tories (his term, not mine).

  11. So the ALP can talk to Bolt as the Alternate Liberal Party, which won’t ever be enough for Bolt & Co, or as Another Liberal Party based on too much of a good thing never being enough? Yet they won’t ever be the real Liberal National Parties, nor would it con working class voters who have turned to perceived genuine article alternatives after having already been alienated by the way too long running weak ALP “me too” act. It may pain voters, but no doubt it pleases the one-per-center fat cat donors the ALP shares in common with the LNP.

    I don’t understand where the difference lies between talking to the right to pinch votes and fighting the left to pinch votes. Aping the hard right or aping the left fools few in voter land. If it’s peanuts they’re wanting, such a continued act will likely deliver.

  12. “What’s striking about this list is that most of the examples lost votes at least as much to parties on their left, which rejected their complicity in austerity: Syriza in Greece, Melenchon’s la France Insoumise, and the Greens in Germany and the Netherlands.”

    The Greens in Germany reject the ‘left vs right’ categories. It seems they are not the only party in Germany who find this categorisation unsatisfactory. In a recent parliamentary speech the leader of the Free Democrats (FDP), Christian Lindner, called on all democrats in the federal parliament to unite against their common enemy, the AfD, suggesting unambiguously that the CDU, the CSU, the SPD, the Greens and Die Linke are the democratic parties but not the AfD. Although not neatly consistently over time, the FDP may still be considered to be ‘right-wing’ in terms of representing business interests, but they they are not ‘right-wing’ when it comes to anthropogenic climate change. Again Lindner calls the AfD climate change deniers. The FDP does subscribe to public funding of education, health and various types of social security. In other words, there is agreement among all the ‘democratic parties’ that the State has an important role to play in ‘the economy’ which is consistent with the constitution, including a social market economy without ignoring the ecology. They all support the continuation of the EU. They differ in degree or on details on specific policies. The AfD uses the term ‘cartel parties’ for those which Lindner calls democratic.

    There is the idea of social democracy and there are parties who explicitly call themselves social democratic as is the case with the SPD in Germany. But the SPD under Schroeder acted more like a neoliberal than the CDU as far as workers rights and conditions are concerned (eg Hartz IV) and also regarding privatisation. On the other hand, the CDU under Merkel is being criticised by some because the party has become too social democratic. By all accounts, both parties are centrist, one being perceived as a little left of centre and the other one a little right of centre, viewed within the ‘Zeitgeist’. It is generally acknowledged that both parties lost voters, the SPD more than the CDU because they have governed in what is known as the GroCo (big coalition). IMHO, while this coalition may have been disadvantages for the parties, it was good for the country.

    Indeed, the Greens in Germany have made enormous gains in terms of percentage of votes, they are in government in the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg and in coalition governments in several other State governments. In the recent election in the State of Bavaria, the Greens were the second strongest party after the CSU. Merkel and her CDU party was prepared to have a coalition with the Greens and the FDP in the Federal Parliament. The Greens were prepared to join but the FDP opted out.

    During the Bavarian State elections I noticed the Greens were the only party that focused totally on their own program without criticising any of the other parties – they simply ignored the AfD.

    I beg to differ regarding parties in Germany being either pro or anti ‘austerity’. I am aware Angela Merkel having used this word. However, I am reasonably confident in saying the CDU, the CSU, the SPD (except perhaps Schroeder), the Greens, the Linke and even the latest version of the FDP do not understand this word in the same way as understood in the contemporary English literature. In short, ‘austerity’ is used in the sense of members of society having to tighten their belts but more so the relatively rich (eg the Soli tax introduced to finance the unification). The Greens seem to promote less consumerism and economising in the sense of waste not want not. This is not the same as focusing only on governments’ budgets.

    Disclosure: I became aware of the AfD toward the end of August when the smh reported some street violence in Chemnitz (former East Germany). This caused me to review my mental model of the political parties in Germany. In the process I discovered strong links between the AfD and UKIP.

  13. Albo’s pre-selection would only be doubtful if he shacked up with Bronwyn Bishop and even then he probably wouldn’t have much of a problem.

    And, unlike 2016, next election he won’t need to break a sweat to beat the Greens. This is so for two reasons. One, the Labor Party is doing much better. Two, the Greens in NSW are at war with themselves. Albo won’t need the Daily Telegraph this time.

  14. Seems from some of the comments (here and elsewhere) that Labor’s right wing faction is more concerned with holding fast to failed ideology and its share of the graft than it is with looking at evidence based public policy.

  15. Seems from some of the comments (here and elsewhere) that Labor’s right wing faction is more concerned with holding fast to failed ideology and its share of the graft than it is with looking at evidence based public policy.

    I find that comment baffling. I can’t find any chain of reasoning that connects any of the comments here with Jexpat’s conclusion. It’s almost as if Jexpat wanted to make this assertion independently of, and regardless of the content of, any of the comments here, which would be a rude thing to do.

  16. The enemies are not people. The enemies are false idea systems; the religions and ideologies which have recourse to faith reasoning. False ideas are those which are non-correspondent with dependable fundamental realities; meaning the material realities shown to us by the hard sciences of physics, chemistry, biology and ecology.

    Labor’s National Platform states:

    “Labor believes in economic growth, opportunity and fairness. … Labor is a party of economic growth. We reject the arguments of those who do not believe in economic growth.”

    Nowhere could I find a reasoned argument where they “reject the arguments” of those who do not “believe” in economic growth. Such a statement, standing alone without reasoned argument, is just as worthless as the statements of those who reject climate science without science and reasoned argument.

    In the Labor platform, we are exhorted to a faith ideology; one based on blind belief rather than on taking any real account of the evidence from the sciences. Labor BELIEVES in economic growth and the clear implication is a belief in indefinite growth, meaning endless growth. If this were not so, they would talk about our current material growth, including population growth, in the context of a managed and decelerating approach approach to a sustainable limit and a (relatively) steady state and circular (recycling) economy at the material-energetic level; an economy which remained within the planetary boundaries of ecosystems and bio-services. However, this issue is never canvassed by Labor nor by the LNP. A little later, Labor talk about sustainable economic growth which is a clear contradiction. Endless growth is not sustainable.

    Labor talk the talk but don’t walk the walk. While some attention is paid to ecology and climate science, it is merely lip-service. The extant policies ignore all the deeper implications of ecology and climate science by not only implying but stating the clear mandate for endless growth.

    Science is not certain, although the certainty of well-settled science on relatively simple, well-studied matters is in the region of 99.9999% or better. On matters of complex systems science, climate science for example, we have some certainty ranges up at around 90% or higher for certain scenarios. Compare this to mere belief. Belief has no certainty range at all because it employs no evidence, no logic and no rational deductions. Belief employs only inductions of the most undisciplined and fanciful nature. The standard and correct names for these inductions are myths and fairy-tales.

    Labor believes in myths and fairy tales, as do the LNP. Their blind beliefs are absolutely worthless. In fact, such blind beliefs are worse than worthless. They are highly dangerous. Based on wishful and magical thinking they run directly counter to real world evidence. To blindly believe and to function on blind belief alone is to be a fundamentalist. Our mainstream political economy discourse in Australia is still entirely rooted in economic fundamentalism and science denialism.

    Labor is perhaps more dangerous and insidious in that they pretend to take notice of science and then subvert it and ignore it in the service of more endless growth economics. It is clear that endless economic (capitalist) growth is the modern religion par excellence. Labor is appealing to the blind belief inculcated in the general populace by the propaganda of endless growth capitalism.

    When will things change? Things change “on the day that prophecy fails”. The day (or year or decade) that the endless economic growth prophecies fail, and fail comprehensively and continuously, will be the time when people realise that have been sold a mess of falsehoods by the current system. How will they react?

  17. We do not have a price on carbon now because of the Greens.
    with due respect the Greens have policies just as mad as the liberal ‘right’ or even One Nation.

    Life has changed. I am old enough to remember when Messrs Quiggin and Soon agreed on more than they disagreed. The parties were not into cultural wars. Sadly this is no longer the case/

  18. Following on from Ikonoclast’s excellent comment, Albanese suffers from the same problem as the Coalition in that they fail to see that their problems are with their policies which are not reflecting what the electorate want in a rapidly changing world. The rise of the Greens in his electorate reflect the needs of his electorate for representation more focussed on the environment, equality, social justice, uncorrupted democracy etc. etc. and getting all hostile at the Greens instead of becoming more progressive himself will only see him losing his seat.

  19. We don’t have a price on carbon now because of: power plays of sell-out self centred fossilised union bosses’ achieved through their financial leverage within Labor; numerous one-per-center fat cat corporate donors’ huge financial leverage over Labor; a conga line of post politics career focused Laborites looking beyond Labor; and because it aint a labour party.

    Sure, these latter day sainted Greens fall short too, particularly on addressing population policy, and similar acceptance and reliance on dark money donations notwithstanding their call for a ban (eg., numerous fat cat corporates can have no trouble with Greens population policy waffle.)

  20. The Greens have a reasonable grasp of the ecological realities facing us. The other mainstream parties have no idea at all. Or, if they do they are entirely mendacious and short-sighted probably due to being in receipt of political donation payola from the endless-growth capitalists.

    The Greens don’t yet understand the ramifications of economics and political economy. They are still captured by a number of neoliberal economic doctrines.

  21. Remember that remark from a world war two general;
    “No, the Germans are our _adversary_. The _navy_ is our _enemy_. ”
    The closer the basic alignment, the more scope for rivalry.

  22. Albo the left wing working class hero is a myth and that comment comes from someone who follows the ALP down the line. Albo doesn’t associate with the Greens and espouses soft left ideas because he is terrified of losing his seat to them. Recently I heard Doug Cameron, proudly left, speak. When asked if he thought Jeremy Corbyn a disappointment he answered “How can I be disappointed with someone who is proud to be called a socialist”. In general, and there are exceptions, like Cameron, the ALP, infinitely superior to the LNP rabble with their DLP component, is not left wing.

  23. How many times does it have to said that economic growth is not synonymous with unsustainable resoirce use. The transition to electric vehicles and renewable energy and storage is creating hundreds of billions of dollars worth of economic activity while improving sustainablity.

    The Greens are nuts and at the moment they are at war with each other on half a dozen fronts. If the Greens had their way we would have unrestricted immigration and everything that comes with it, including a breakdown in social trust, ethnic tensions, scandals like Rotherham, a greater terror risk, more of the white working class fleeing to the nationalist right etc etc

    The Greens remind of the suicide squad sent to rescue Brian in the The Life of Brian. The ALP often needs their support in Parliament but they are nuts so, at least in public, they must be kept at arm’s length.

  24. I am not a member of a political party, but if I were, I would want it to attract votes from as many people as possible.* For example, if I were a member of Anthony Albanese’s party, the ALP**, I would want it to attract votes from people who have previously voted for the ALP, from people who have previously voted for the Coalition parties, from people who have previously voted for the Greens, One Nation, the No Aircraft Noise party, or any other, and also from people who have not previously voted for any party. I can’t figure any way it would make sense for Anthony Albanese’s party to decide that it is going to try to attract support from people who have previously voted for other parties but not from people who have previously voted for the Greens. What would be the point of that? (It wouldn’t make sense for any other party, either. The Coalition parties try to attract support from people who have previously voted for other parties, and so do the Greens, and so does just about every other party that contests elections seriously at all, and none of them say, ‘Oh, but we won’t try to attract support from people who have previously voted for X party, that’s an exception’.)

    Of course the Greens party is not the same thing as the Greens voters. In some situations there might be a tactical advantage for some particular party in announcing that no deals will be made with another particular party. When the ALP in Queensland announced that it would not direct preferences to One Nation but would instead direct preferences to the LNP ahead of One Nation, it was a move that could have been defended as a matter of principle, but it also turned out to be very much to the tactical advantage of the ALP.

    So it comes back to the question of what kind of engagement we’re talking about.

    *I know that there are some political parties which do not aim at electoral success. There are some which do not even contest elections. So this doesn’t apply to parties like that. But the parties people are most familiar with are the ones that do aim at electoral success.

    ** Sparkling with brilliance, Svante makes that stand for ‘Another Liberal Party’. How ingenious Svante is! It could make you wonder why nobody else thought of that clever witticism first.

  25. Can J-D tell us what border security/ asylum seeker message Albo could give that would win over both a Greens voter and a One Nation voter?

  26. “Although claims that the Internet has produced echo chambers have been made widely, it’s far from obvious that exposure to alternative views has diminished.”

    I think this repetitive slogan only became the favorite phrase of the traditional mass media because the internet is taking over their jobs. The Murdoch press never had a leftist perspective anyway which meant that a very significant portion if not a majority of the population were already exposed to polarised news well before the rise of social media. When Fairfax or the ABC makes such claims, they should give their irrational commitment to extreme centrism a deep rethink. The coverage back at the time between LNP and ALP’s NBN plans were shameful and the worst form of centrism practiced by both Fairfax and the ABC when the technicians were pretty much united to in support of FTTP, similarly true for climate change coverages. In my opinion, both internet technicians and climate scientists are apolitical in their unity in the respective issues.

    In my opinion, in economics, Ross Gittins is passable but not comparable to you and vastly inferior to Bill Mitchell when it comes to labour market analysis. In politics, Andrew Elder gives a pretty good run for money if not better than Laura Tingle – the only political journalist worth reading in my opinion. In every other technical field it is possible to find superior bloggers than mass media journalists, so the internet is simply the better quality alternative than traditional mass media.

  27. Sorry J-D. One sting deserves another, eh? I make no such claim, but you do miss that I had ‘ALP’ as true to character standing for more than one wobbly thing. I do believe I can claim “imaginary labour party” (elsewhere).

    ** Sparkling with brilliance, Svante makes that stand for ‘Another Liberal Party’. How ingenious Svante is! It could make you wonder why nobody else thought of that clever witticism first.

  28. Can J-D tell us what border security/ asylum seeker message Albo could give that would win over both a Greens voter and a One Nation voter?

    No, I can’t. What conclusion do you incorrectly imagine is justified by my inability to answer your smart-alecky ‘Gotcha!’ question?

    If Nat and Pat voted for different parties last election, does it follow that it’s impossible for them to vote for the same (third) party next election? No, not at all. If Nat voted for the Greens at the last election and Pat voted for One Nation, they probably won’t vote for the same party at the next election, but they might, and it could be the Greens, One Nation, the Liberals, the ALP, or any other party that’s running candidates.

    It comes back, still, to the question of what kind of engagement is being discussed.

    The question ‘Which policy platform should the ALP adopt for the next election, that of the Greens or that of One Nation?’ is not worth discussing, because the ALP is obviously going to do neither. Whatever Anthony Albanese means by ‘engagement’, he doesn’t mean the ALP replacing its policy platform with that of another party. I know some of the things he does not mean, but I still don’t know what he does mean. Does he know himself?

  29. Sorry J-D. One sting deserves another, eh?

    Sting?

    Distorting the names of organisations (or of people) as a way of deriding them doesn’t sting, it’s far too dull and tedious for that. But people insincerely saying they’re sorry when they’re not is even duller and more tedious.

  30. Don’t come the raw prawn? J-D
    You said the ALP should try to win over inter alia Greens and One Nation voters. I gave you an opportunity to explain how this could be done given the seemingly incommensurate outlook such voters have on immigration. Be honest. You made a typical J-D mindless talking point and you don’t like being exposed.

  31. I gave you an opportunity to explain how this could be done given the seemingly incommensurate outlook such voters have on immigration. Be honest.

    You ‘gave me an opportunity’ that I didn’t ask for, have no use for, and am not interested in. Why? Be honest.

  32. J-D, let me try again as you are obviously a slow learner
    You very clearly said you could not understand why Labour would try to win One Nation etc voters but not Greens voters. I made the bleedingly obvious point, by way of the immigration ecample, that isn’t possible to tailor a message to win support from both Green voters and One Nation voters. In other words, your lack of understanding is insipid. Albo can understand, I can understand, anyone with any common sense and intelligence can understand. Yet you can’t and probably never will.

  33. As has been pointed out the left-right picture in German politics is quite muddled at this point – there are politicians and parties unambiguously on the right (AfD, much of the CSU, parts of the CDU), and politicians and parties who consider themselves on the left – but Merkel’s massive use of triangulation plus grand coalition politics has made the centre ground very contested and overlapping. In this picture the Greens are no more left than the SPD. Some of its state sections are quite clearly conservative (Baden-Württemberg for example), others classically liberal, a few are still left-ish (Berlin). The vote the SPD has lost to the Greens is that of socially progressive educated professionals, a class that replaced organised workers as the main centre left voting block some time ago in Germany, similarly to other Western countries.

    As for austerity, for historical reasons austerity economics is so culturally dominant in Germany almost no party dare go against it – the LINKE is the only one, and it is suffering from major internal problems.

  34. Just briefly, I go along with Quiggin.

    I’ve had enough, over decades, of this nonsense that goes on between the ALP and the Greens and think it is high time both sides accommodated each other a bit especially the ALP.

    It is not 1980 any more. The secret concerning environment has been out for forty years and Labor’s denialism, perhaps worst concerning forests probably lubricated lubricated by unnamed donations sources, has seen it little better than the Tories when it comes to adjusting to reality.

  35. johnno, I simply quote my own previous comment:

    I can’t figure any way it would make sense for Anthony Albanese’s party to decide that it is going to try to attract support from people who have previously voted for other parties but not from people who have previously voted for the Greens. What would be the point of that?

    Christian Haesemeyer wrote:

    The vote the SPD has lost to the Greens is that of socially progressive educated professionals, a class that replaced organised workers as the main centre left voting block some time ago in Germany, similarly to other Western countries.

    Many socially progressive educated professionals are organised workers. I remember reading (I haven’t checked this, but it’s plausible) that at the time of Federation the largest single occupational category in Australia was railway workers, while a century later the largest single occupational category was schoolteachers: schoolteachers must always have a level of formal education than the minimum requirement for railway workers, but many of them are also unionised workers. (Whether schoolteachers are more or less socially progressive than railway workers I don’t know.)

  36. Christian Haesemayer’s statement: “The vote the SPD has lost to the Greens is that of socially progressive educated professionals, a class that replaced organised workers as the main centre left voting block some time ago in Germany, similarly to other Western countries.” is supported by data I have seen for the Bavarian State election. I don’t if this data is applicable to other Western countries.

  37. Any dataset which treats as disjoint sets which are not in fact disjoint is so methodologically flawed as to be worthless.

  38. True, J-D. This is the reason why I prefer a system approach in economics rather than micro- and macro.

  39. Christian didn’t state the two sets are disjoint, J_D.

    He stated that one has replaced the other as “the main centre left voting block”.

  40. If the two sets are not disjoint (and they aren’t), then it’s meaningless to assert that one has replaced the other.

  41. It’s not a meaningless assertion at all.

    In the past, most centre left voters were trade union members, but few had university degrees and worked as educated professionals.

    A century later, few centre left voters are trade union members, but most have university degrees and work as educated professionals.

    One class has very much replaced the other as ‘the largest’. The logic is 100% valid, and pair of simple Venn diagrams can easily demonstrate this.

  42. A century later, few centre left voters are trade union members, but most have university degrees and work as educated professionals.

    Whether that assertion is meaningful depends on whether the expression ‘centre left voters’ is meaningful.

    The assertion ‘few ALP voters are trade union members, but most have university degrees’ is certainly meaningful; it’s also probably false.

  43. Centre left in Australia ~= Greens voters + Labor voters who’d rather vote Greens than Liberal.

    I shouldn’t have written ‘degrees’ and ‘most’. But in 2018 I’d guess it’s something like 40-45% have tertiary qualifications and work as educated professionals.

  44. I define the Left as those who wish to redistribute at least some power wealth and status from those who have it to those who don’t *and* who support progressive social reforms such as voluntary euthanasia. By such criteria, the ALP is certainly on the Left.

    The ALP is also pragmatic, hence Shorten backed down on small business tax cuts when it became clear that the right commentariat would hammer him on it if he didn’t. The Greens can remain ideologically pure because their vote is forever confined to the foreskin of the electorate i.e. 10%

  45. I shouldn’t have written ‘degrees’ and ‘most’. But in 2018 I’d guess it’s something like 40-45% have tertiary qualifications and work as educated professionals.

    Would you? Well, I would guess that you’re wrong.

  46. J-D, I’ll put some figures together tonight, and try to follow up tomorrow.

    I’m curious though. What do you think is a reasonable ballpark percentage in 2018?

    What are you expecting the figure to be, and why exactly are you expecting it can’t be >40%?

  47. The fraction of the Australian workforce in professional occupations is around half that. So, out of nothing, you’re guessing that the fraction of ALP voters in professional occupations is double the fraction of the Australian workforce. Why?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s